MOODY MARINE LTD

Ref: 802020 v5

Author(s): D. Bennett, J Nichols, T Huntington

Certification Report for

NESFC Lobster Fishery

Client: North East Sea Fisheries Committee

Certification Body: Client Contact: Moody Marine Ltd North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee Moody International Certification Town Hall Salisbury House Bridlington Stephenson’s Way East Riding of Yorkshire. YO16 4LP Wyvern Business Park Tel: +44 (0)1482 393690 Derby. DE21 6LY Fax: +44 (0)1482 393699 UK Tel: +44 (0) 1704 834644 Fax: +44 (0) 1332 675152

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Contents

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION...... 1 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS...... 1 1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES USED ...... 2 1.3.1 Principal information sources...... 2 1.3.2 Other information sources...... 2 2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY ...... 5 2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES ...... 5 2.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY...... 6 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 6 2.3.1 Gears ...... 9 2.3.2 Quotas...... 9 2.4 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES...... 10 2.5 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ...... 12 2.6 BY-CATCH AND DISCARD ...... 14 2.6.1 Incidental Catch...... 14 2.6.2 Discards ...... 14 2.6.3 Catch of Threatened, Rare and Iconic Species...... 14 2.7 HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS ...... 14 2.7.1 Habitat Impacts ...... 14 2.7.2 Gear Loss and Ghost Fishing...... 15 2.7.3 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 15 2.8 OTHER FISHERIES RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT ...... 16 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT...... 17 3.1 LEGISLATION...... 17 3.1.1 General ...... 17 3.1.2 Species Specific...... 18 3.1.3 Local Byelaws...... 18 4 STOCK ASSESSMENT...... 21 4.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT...... 21 4.2 MONITORING OF STOCK STATUS ...... 21 4.3 MODELLING ...... 22 4.4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE ...... 22 5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT ...... 24 5.1 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES...... 24 5.2 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS...... 25 6 STANDARD USED...... 26 PRINCIPLE 1...... 26 PRINCIPLE 2...... 26 PRINCIPLE 3...... 27

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report 7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION ...... 29 7.1 EVALUATION TEAM...... 29 7.2 PEER REVIEW ...... 29 7.3 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS...... 30 7.4 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY ...... 30 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 31 8.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION...... 31 8.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES...... 31 9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING...... 32 9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY ...... 32 9.2 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 32 10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY ...... 32

11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ...... 33 11.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ...... 33 11.2 PRE-CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION ...... 33 11.2.1 Pre-Conditions ...... 33 11.2.2 Conditions...... 34 11.2.3 Recommendations ...... 35 12 AGREEMENT ...... 36 12.1 APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO MEET SPECIFIED CONDITIONS...... 36

Appendices

APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE APPENDIX B: PEER REVIEW REPORTS

Tables and Figures Tables

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF LOBSTER LANDINGS, POTS WORKED AND LPUES...... 8 TABLE 2: TOTAL NO. OF VESSELS (ALL FISHERIES) WITH HOME PORTS IN ASSESSMENT AREA...... 10 TABLE 3: NUMBER OF BOATS, FISHERS, AND POTS IN THE ASSESSMENT AREA (2004) ...... 11

Figures

FIGURE 1: POTS WORKED AND LOBSTERS LANDED (2004) ...... 7 FIGURE 2: SUMMARY OF LOBSTER LANDINGS, POTS WORKED AND LPUES ...... 8 FIGURE 3: COASTLINE UNDER NESFC JURISDICTION HIGHLIGHTING THE PORTS SERVING THE INSHORE LOBSTER FISHERY...... 10 FIGURE 4: WATER DEPTHS OFF EASTERN ENGLAND...... 12 FIGURE 5: FLAMBOROUGH HEAD EMS DELIMITATION ...... 13

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the results of the assessment of the North East Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) Lobster Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. 1.1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework”. The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined as: Species: Lobster (Homarus gammarus) Geographical Area: The Yorkshire coast between Staithes and Spurn Point and seaward to the 6 mile limit. Method of Capture: Baited pots Stock The biological limits of the Northeast coast lobster stock are not defined. While movements of juveniles and adults are considered to be localised, little is known about larval dispersion and the origin of recruitment (see discussion in 2.1). However, the fishery is well defined geographically and in terms of the NESFC District 6-mile limit. Management System: The fishery is managed by the NESFC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA), vessel licensing is carried out by DEFRA and MFA, and scientific advice is provided by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).

1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 5. It must be stressed that this assessment is concerned only with the fishery defined above. This report firstly sets out: • the background to the fishery under assessment • the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment • the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria) • stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) Section 9 of the report sets out the methodology used to assess (‘score’) the fishery against the MSC Standard. The scoring table then sets out the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring Guidelines which aid the team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 1

The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring commentary in context. As a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification. In draft form, this report is subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (‘peer review’). The comments of these scientists are appended to the final report. With peer review comments, the draft report is circulated for stakeholder review and is placed on the MSC website. The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments and the peer review comments is then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (independent of the assessment team) which makes the final certification determination. When updated with the certification determination, the final report is then circulated for a further round of stakeholder review. It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.

1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES USED

1.3.1 Principal information sources Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with stakeholders in the trawl fishery, notably: I1. NESFC I2. DEFRA I3. CEFAS I4. Natural England I5. Environment Agency I6. Seafish Industry Authority I7. Independent Shell Fisherman’s Co-op (Bridlington) Ltd I8. Alliance Shellfish Merchants I9. Yorkshire Forward I10. University of Hull I11. Flamborough and Bridlington Fisherman’s Society I12. Seafish Industry Authority

1.3.2 Other information sources Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are: R1. British Geological Survey (1991a. Geology of the United Kingdom, Ireland and the adjacent continental shelf (south sheet). 1:1,000,000). R2. British Geological Survey (1991b. Spurn. Sheet 53 N-00 , Quaternary Geology. 1:250,000 series. R3. George. J.D., I. Tittley, P.J. Chimonides & N.J. Evans (1988). The macrobenthos of chalk shores in north Norfolk and around Flamborough Head (north Humberside). Contractor Natural History Museum, London. Nature Conservancy Council, CSD Report No. 833. R4. Jones, N.S. (1950). Marine bottom communities. Biological Reviews, 25: 283-313. R5. Senior, R. (1999a). Preliminary study investigating the types and potential effects of fishing activities in and around the Flamborough Head candidate Special Area of

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 2

Conservation site. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee/ Natural England Joint Report. R6. Senior, R. (1999b). The Flamborough Head cSAC fishing fleet (1999): Inventory of vessels and gear and analysis of fishing effort. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee/ Natural England Joint Report. R7. Williams, R., J.A. Lindley, H.G. Hunt and N.R. Collins (1993). Plankton community structure and geographical distribution in the North Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 172: 143-156. R8. Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd joint report. Pp 151 R9. Swarbrick, J. and Arkley K. (1999) The evaluation of ghost fishing preventors for shellfish traps, Sea Fish Industry Authority, Hull, UK. MAFF Study MF0724. R10. Eno, N.C., MacDonald, D. and Amos, S.C. (1996). A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species. Report to European Commission Directorate General XIV, Studies Contract 94/076, 43pp. R11. MacDonald, D.S., Little, M., Eno, N.C. and Hiscock, K. (1997). Towards assessing the sensitivity of benthic species and biotopes in relation to fishing activities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 6. R12. Evans, 2000. Flamborough Head European Marine Site Management Scheme. Published by: Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation Management Group. R13. Addison, J. T. 1995. Influence of behavioural interactions on lobster distribution and abundance as inferred from pot-caught samples. ICES mar. Sci. Symp., 199: 294-300. R14. Addison, J. T. 1997. Lobster stock assessment: report from a Workshop; I. Mar. Freshwater Res., 48, 941-944. R15. Addison, J. T., R.C.A. Bannister and S.R.J. Lovewell. 1995. Variation and persistence of pre-recruit catch rates of Homarus gammarus in Bridlington Bay, England. Crustacean, 68 (2), 267-279. R16. Addison, J.T. and R.C.A. Bannister. 1998. Quantifying potential impacts of behavioural factors on crustacean stock monitoring and assessment: modelling and experimental approaches. In proceedings of the North Pacific Symposium on Invertebrate Stock Management. Edited by G.S. Jamieson and A. Campbell. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125. Pp. 167-177. R17. Bannister, R.C.A., J.T. Addison and S.R.J. Lovewell. 1994. Growth, movement, recapture rate and survival of hatchery-reared lobsters (Homarus gammarus Linneaus, 1758) released into the wild on the English East coast. Crustaceana 67 (2), 156-172. R18. Bannister R.C.A. and J.T. Addison, 1995. Analysis of time and space variation in a lobster population on the east coast of England. ICES Marine Science Symposium, 199:334-348. R19. Bannister, R.C.A. and J.T. Addison. 1995a. Investigating space and time variation in catches of lobsters (Homarus gammarus (L.)) in a local fishery on the east coast of England. ICES mar. Sci. Symp., 199: 334-348. R20. Bannister, R.C.A. and J.T. Addison. 1998. Enhancing lobster stocks: a review of recent European methods, results, and future prospects. Bulletin of Marine Science, 62(2): 369- 387.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 3

R21. Bradshaw, B. 2005. Letter to editor. Fishing News, 2 December, p. 4. R22. Eaton, D.R., J. Brown, J.T. Addison, S.P. Milligan and L.J. Fernand. 2003. Edible crab (Cancer pagurus) larvae surveys off the east coast of England: implications for stock structure. Fisheries Research, 65, 191-199. R23. Free, E. K. and P. A. Tyler. 1992. Lobster (Homarus gammarus) fecundity and maturity in England and Wales. ICES CM 1992/K:43, 9pp. R24. Hepper, B.T. 1978. Population dynamics of the lobster Homarus gammarus (L) off the coasts of England. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, (41), 29 pp. R25. McCandless, D and L. Stockdale. 2004. Lobster ‘V’ Notching Project. 2004. Final Report. NESFC. R26. Nichols, J.H. and S.J. Lovewell. 1987. Lobster larvae (Homarus gammarus L.) investigations in Bridlington bay. Can quantitative sampling be confined to the neuston layer? J. of Natural History, 21, 825-841. R27. Sheehy M.R.J., P.M.J. Shelton, R.C.A. Bannister and J.F. Wickins, 1999. New Perspectives on the Growth and Longevity of the European Lobster (Homarus gammarus (L.)). Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 56(10): 1904-1915. R28. Sheehy M.R.J. and R.C.A. Bannister, 2002. Year-class detection reveals climatic modulation of settlement strength in the European lobster, Homarus gammarus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 59(7): 1132-1143. R29. Watson, J. and R. White. 2004. The Bridlington Shellfishery – A Sustainable Future. Sea Fish Industry Authority, Edinburgh, pp. 71. R30. http://www.mfa.gov.uk Marine Fisheries Agency. http://www.mfa.gov.uk/enforcement/default.htm “How we enforce the regulations”. http://www.mfa.gov.uk/pdf/corpplan.pdf “MFA Corporate Plan 2005/6 – 2007/8”. R31. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/conserve “Sea Fisheries: conservation”. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/sea/pdf/sfc-role.pdf Guidance note on the nature and role of Sea Fisheries Committees”. R32. http://www.neseafish.gov.uk/nesfc North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee. R33. Bullimore B, Gilbert S, Lock K & Newman P (1996): A study on the effects of fish (Crustacea / Mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species: “Ghost fishing” by lost pots. A report to the European Commission by Skomer Marine Nature Reserve, Countryside Council for Wales.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 4

2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY

2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES The European lobster, Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus, 1758) is widely distributed along the Eastern Atlantic coasts of Europe. They are found in most areas of the British Isles, particularly off rocky coastlines. Lobsters seek shelter at all stages of their lives and are caught in baited traps when they venture out to forage for food. They are carnivorous, eating a wide range of marine animals. Normally they are solitary animals, and aggressive competition for shelter and territory forms a major part of their behaviour. Given their economic importance, the biology and ecology of the lobster have been reasonably well described. Lobsters start life as planktonic larvae. Eggs hatch in summer and develop through four larval stages, over a period of about three to five weeks, before settling onto the seabed as juveniles. Larvae have been found to concentrate in the surface neuston layer at times (R26. Nichols & Lovewell, 1987), but were found throughout the water column with vertical migrations, probably related to light levels. Little is known about the spatial distribution of larvae, but given the length of time they are subjected to tidal and wind driven currents, they could be quite widely distributed from the initial hatching area. Recent studies of crab (Cancer pagurus) larval distributions in relation to major hydrographic features suggest that the Flamborough Head thermal front effectively splits the crab larval distribution into two discrete separately recruited stocks (R22. Eaton et al, 2003). It is not known what influence the front may have on lobster larvae. Very little is known about the habitat preferences of juvenile lobsters, though they probably inhabit crevices and are known to be capable of burrowing into soft sediments. Small juveniles are rarely caught in commercial fishing gears, and attempts to use specialist sampling methods have failed (Bannister, pers. comm.). However, hatchery reared microwired lobsters have been released over known lobster grounds, including Bridlington Bay, and yielded recaptures four to five years later in commercial gear (R17 & 20. Bannister et al, 1994, & Bannister and Addison, 1998). Hatchery reared lobsters have shown little dispersal, and this has been confirmed in tagging studies (R17) of larger trap-caught lobsters, though there are indications of some inshore/offshore movements (R24. Hepper, 1978). Size composition analysis has shown that smaller lobsters predominate on the inshore grounds, with larger lobsters offshore (R19. Bannister & Addison). Lobsters grow by moulting and seem to have a variable growth rate. Growth is a function of both moult increment and frequency. Tagging studies have established moult increments of the order of 10-15% of carapace length. Moulting frequency declines with age, and for females can be interrupted by carrying eggs for 9-10 months from the autumn of one year to hatching the following summer. Studies of neurolipofuscin levels in eyestalk ganglion suggested that at least seven year-classes enter the fishery at the minimum landing size (MLS) of 87 mm CL (R27. Sheehy et al, 1999). If this were correct, this would provide a buffer for annual variations in larval abundance and settlement, which have been suggested to be climatically (water temperature and onshore winds) modulated (R28. Sheehy & Bannister, 2002). Mating usually occurs between a hard-shelled male and a soft, newly moulted female in summer. The size at which sexual maturity occurs has been shown to vary around the UK coast. Off Bridlington (R23. Free & Tyler, 1992), based on ovary maturation, the 50% female maturity size was 83 mm CL, and at 98 mm CL all females were mature. The smallest berried lobster observed was 81 mm CL, with a maximum of 46% of females being berried. Fecundity is linearly related to size, in terms of weight, with a female at the MLS of 87 mm CL carrying about 7,000 eggs, while at 120 mm CL fecundity is proportionally greater at about 18,000 eggs.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 5

It is not possible to define in biological terms a lobster stock within the area here described geographically as “The Yorkshire coast between Staithes and Spurn Point and seaward to the 6 mile limit”. Spurn Point and the Humber Estuary may well be the southern limit of a lobster stock that extends more or less continuously northwards along the NE coast of England and Scotland. Staithes is not the northern limit. In terms of stock identity, while it is well established that larger juvenile and adult lobsters, in the main, only make limited localised movements, little is known about the distribution of the larval phase. Lobster larvae are difficult to sample and a survey along the NE coast only caught a very small number. There were localised studies in Bridlington Bay that suggested a “hot spot” of larval abundance that appeared to persist, suggesting a possibility of some hydrographic containment. Lobsters also extend offshore well beyond the six-mile limit, which defines the NESFC District and the fishery being assessed. Catch sampling shows that lobsters caught beyond the six-mile limit are larger than those inshore, with a high proportion of large berried (ovigorous) females. It has been suggested (Addison, pers. comm.) that these females could well be a major source of recruitment to the inshore areas.

2.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY There has been a creel fishery for crabs and lobsters for decades, if not centuries, along the Yorkshire coast. Fishing was mainly carried out by small vessels, many launched from beach landings and fishing close to shore. The main gear used was the single chambered creel, originally made with biodegradable natural materials (wood, natural fibre netting and twine). In the last 10-20 years the traditional creels (pots) have been made from more durable materials (steel and plastics), and replaced by the more efficient parlour pot (see 2.3.1). Fishers have gradually increased the number of pots they work as improved mechanisation enabled more gear to be worked per trip. Many fishers now have two or more sets of gear which are worked sequentially with soak times ranging from one to many days if bad weather intervenes. Landings from the east coast of England and Scotland dominated UK lobster landings in the 1960s, then declined in Northumberland, before increasing again in the 1990s, especially in Yorkshire and East Anglia. The decline of the whitefish sector in the North Sea and growth of shellfish landings in the Yorkshire ports, is most apparent in Bridlington where in recent years potting has extended further offshore. While the target species offshore is edible crab, there are significant landings of lobsters and velvet crabs. There is also a separate fishery for whelks using specifically designed whelk pots. Inshore the main catch is lobster and edible crab, though in recent years landings of velvet crab have become significant. Details of the current lobster fishery are given in Section 2.3.

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY There are 13 active ‘ports’ within the area from Staithes to Spurn Head. Potting for lobsters is predominantly inshore, with an estimate (based on local knowledge) of around 75% of landings being caught within the 6 mile limit, mainly by small (<10m) vessels making day trips. The rest (25%) is taken offshore from larger (>10m) vessels mainly based in Bridlington. Lobster and crabs (brown and velvet) are taken by the same vessels and gear but they target different grounds seasonally for the three species. Some of the smaller boats still launch from several beach locations along the Yorkshire Coast. A permit scheme (see 3.1.3), introduced in 1999, has allowed the NESFC to quantify the number of vessels in the fishery (see Table 1, section 2.4) and has provided valuable fishery statistics to monitor and manage the lobster fishery (see 3.1.3 and 4.2). In 2004 from Staithes to Spurn point there were 121 vessels recorded with permits and potting for crab and lobster. They fished a maximum (August) of 68,734 pots, an average of 568 pots per vessel. Most boats have more

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 6

than one set of gear and haul them alternately with variable soak times. The fishery is seasonal (see figure below which excludes ‘Bridlington offshore’), with peak effort and lobster landings in July –September when about 60% of the annual landings are taken. Figure 1: Pots worked and Lobsters landed (2004)

Monthly (2004) pots worked and lobsters (t) landed Lobs (t) Pots 80 80000 70 70000 60 60000 50 50000 40 40000 30 30000 Lobsters (t) Lobsters Pots worked Pots 20 20000 10 10000 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Un-registered vessels without a permit are limited in their catches to 2 lobsters per day from a maximum of 10 pots (see 3.1.3). There are believed to be less than 80 such boats, but there are no records of their catch. Based on assumptions about their fishing activity, an approximate assessment suggests that their landings are relatively insignificant, of the order of 1-3% (4 – 12 tonnes per annum) of the total landed weight. Trawlers make incidental catches of lobsters, where voluntary reports over 1999-2003 gave landings averaging between 6kg/vessel/year (1999) to 52kg/vessel/year (2003) and totalling a maximum of 1.2 tonnes in 2000, again a relatively small amount compared to the main pot fishery. Netting effort with single sheet and trammel nets targeted at cod, bass or sole land a small incidental bycatch of lobsters. The majority of lobsters landed are stored live in local cooled seawater tank facilities, prior to sale within the UK or export via vivier lorries to the EU (mainly France and Spain). The main shellfish buyers are private merchants or local co-operatives. As well as landings of brown crab (Cancer pagurus), a significant fishery for velvet crabs (Necora puber) has developed in recent years. Lobster landings have ranged from 237t (2002) to 303t (2004), averaging 267t over the last five years. At an average (Whitby, Scarborough, and Bridlington: source DEFRA) 2003 price of £8.81/kg the lobster fishery was worth well over £2 million per annum. Pots worked (monthly mean) within the assessment area (Staithes to Spurn) have averaged 43,320 (2000-2004), with an overall increase in effort to a maximum of 49,647 in 2004. The record of ‘Days Pots at Sea’ shows a similar trend about a mean value of 27,021. The number of pot landings (trips) increased in 2003 to 14,649, but returned to a value close to the average (11,258) of the previous three years. There are various ways of using the effort information to calculate the landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE), which could be an index of lobster abundance. LPUE has been expressed (table and second graph) as: - • LPUE1 = lobsters landed (kg) per 1000 pots worked annually • LPUE2 = lobsters landed (kg) per 1000 pot days [pot days = pots worked x days pots at sea] • LPUE3 = lobsters landed (kg) per trip (pot landing) • LPUE4 = lobsters landed (kg) per million pot trips [pot trips = pots worked x trips (pot landings)]

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 7

All four indices are remarkably constant over the five-year period 2000-2004, with coefficients of variation of 8.4, 9.1, 14.6, and 13.3% respectively. This suggests a stable fishery, in terms of landings and effort, and a steady ‘stock’ with fairly regular recruitment and a relatively stable abundance. Table 1: Summary of Lobster Landings, Pots Worked and LPUEs Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Lobster (t) 272 240 237 275 303 Pots Worked (annual) 473,870 521,712 484,926 522,914 595,763 LPUE1 (kg/1000 pots worked) 574 460 488 526 509 Days Pots at Sea 24,789 27,971 25,872 27,536 28,938 Effort Pot Days (millions) 12.89 14.85 13.42 14.34 16.04 LPUE2 (kg/100 pot days) 21.1 16.6 17.8 19.2 18.9 Pot Landings (Trips) 11,451 11,698 10,626 14,649 11,109 LPUE3 (kg/trip) 23.8 20.5 22.3 18.8 27.3 LPUE4 (kg/mil pot trips) 50.1 39.3 46.0 35.9 45.8 Data Source: NESFC Permit Scheme (Pers Comm. D. McCandless). Figure 2: Summary of Lobster Landings, Pots Worked and LPUEs A. Lobster landings and effort

NESFC/MSC Lobster Fishery

Lobster (tonnes) Pots Worked ('000s) DaysPots@Sea ('000s) Trips ('000s) EffortPotDays (millions)

700 35

600 30

500 25

400 20

300 15

200 10 Lobster, Pots Worked Pots Lobster,

100 5 DayPots@Sea, Trips, EffortPotDays

0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 8

B. Landings per Unit Effort (LPUE)

NESFC/MSC Lobster Fishery

LPUE1 (kg/1000 pots) LPUE2 (kg/1000 pot days) LPUE3 (kg/trip) LPUE4 kg/million pots*trips

700 60.00

600 50.00

500 40.00

400 30.00

LPUE 1 LPUE 300

20.00 LPUE 2, 3 & 4 200

100 10.00

0 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2.3.1 Gears Activity is closely monitored by port and area including number of vessels, number of fishermen involved and number of pots. Total activity within the area considered in 2004 was in the order of 121 vessels, 293 fishermen and 64,812 pots. For lobster, around 80% is taken inshore. The breakdown of this resource and landings between the offshore, inshore, and both off and inshore is made by the Fishery Officers, based on local know of fishing activity. Lobster pots are mainly 92 cm (36”) by 56 cm (22”) parlour pots. They are steel-framed with 14 mm steel bars. The twine netting varies in specification, but is usually 3.8 mm polyethylene twine (compressed from 6 mm). The bottom bars are spaced 2-2.5 cm. The pots average between 3-7 years in age whilst twine may last 2-5 years with maintenance. Pots are set in ‘fleets’ with between 15-60 pots per fleet, up to 1.5 km in length. The fleets are secured at each end by 20 kg anchors and marked with A1 buoys as well as white 4 gallon floating drums. It is normal practise to take GPS marks for fleet positions. The average soak time is between 3 and 6 days. Putrid, oily fish such as mackerel are used as bait, with around five mackerel used per pot. This differs from crab potting which tends to use softer and fresher bait such as scad. There is a small amount of netting effort using both trammel and tangle nets that catches a small bycatch of lobsters. This effort is mainly targeted at sole or bass in the summer, and cod in the winter. Netting effort has declined as cod catches have diminished. There is also a small bycatch of lobsters in the demersal trawl fishery (see 2.8).

2.3.2 Quotas There are no EC or UK TACs (Total Allowable Catches) or quotas for lobsters, but there are technical measures (see 3.1 below).

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 9

2.4 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES The fishery extends from Staithes in the north to Spurn Point in the south along 200 km of coastline. The NESFC jurisdiction of the fishery, and thus that of the assessment, is to the six nautical mile limit (not shown on figure). Figure 3: Coastline under NESFC Jurisdiction Highlighting the Ports serving the Inshore Lobster Fishery

There are around 13 active ‘ports’ within the area from Staithes to Spurn Head. The majority of these are under 10 m boats mainly based in Whitby, Scarborough and Bridlington and another 37 larger (> 10m) boats based from Whitby and Bridlington (see table below).

Table 2: Total No. of Vessels (all fisheries) with Home Ports in Assessment Area Administrative No. of vessels Smaller vessels (cobbles and Home port port > 10 m < 10 m smaller) targeting crab and lobster also launch from several locations Grimsby Bridlington 21 15 along the Yorkshire Coast. Hornsea 2 Whitby 1 Of these boats, around 121 are targeting lobster as part of the Withernsea 7 lobster, edible crab and velvet crab North Shields Hornsea 1 mixed fishery (see Table overleaf). Staithes 1 This demonstrates that over 40% Scarborough Bridlington 22 of the pots are set by Bridlington Filey 8 boats, with Whitby and Scarborough being the other main Flamborough 11 potting centres. Scarborough 10 21 Staithes 8 Whitby 16 40 Total No. of Vessels 47 137

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 10

Table 3: Number of boats, fishers, and pots in the assessment area (2004) Home Port No. of No. of No. of % of Boats Persons Pots pots Staithes 1 2 340 1% Runswick Bay 6 18 420 1% Whitby 28 66 12,560 19% Robin Hood’s Bay 5 8 540 1% Scarborough 20 43 11,000 17% Filey 5 10 2,550 4% Flamborough (N&S) 5 8 1,850 3% Bridlington 28 91 27,000 42% Hornsea 7 14 3,342 5% Tunstall 3 6 1,000 2% Withernsea 8 16 1,700 3% Easington 4 9 2,010 3% Spurn Point 1 2 500 1% Total 121 293 64,812 100% Source: Based on the NESFC permit data for 2004

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 11

2.5 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The water depth off this part of the coast is relatively shallow, being within 20 m at 10 km out to sea (see Figure 4). The tidal ranges are more than other parts of the North Sea, with a mean spring range of 5 to 6 m, increasing from North to South. Water temperatures vary between 5°C in winter to 14.5°C in summer. The salinity is around 34.5‰, depending upon season and proximity to freshwater flows from estuaries such as the Humber to the south. Figure 4: Water Depths off Eastern England The coastal geology of the region consists of Upper Cretaceous chalk in the north at Flamborough Head with a covering of Devonian till with localised areas of associated sands and gravels. The offshore geology is more complex, being unconsolidated sediments laid down since the sea transgressed across the area in the early Holocene rise in sea level. These sediments are essentially sand in the northern half of the region (Flamborough to Hornsea) and gravely sand from Hornsea to Spurn Head. These tend to be less than a metre thick atop the Upper Cretaceous chalk (British Geological Survey, 1991a, British Geological Survey, 1991b). Sediment transport results from cliff erosion and is predominantly southwards through wave action and currents. There is rapid and persistent cliff erosion, especially between Bridlington and Spurn Head. The Holderness coast suffers from strong erosion by waves and erodes at around 1m per year, the fastest in Europe. As a result the foreshore is characterised by sandy shingle that forms low-lying, southward migrating bars oblique to the shore. Flamborough Head is widely considered to represent a biogeographic divide between the north and south North Sea. The north-facing shore of Flamborough head has been identified as being of international importance for its algal communities, particularly in the splash zone on the cliffs (extending 15-20 m above mean high water) and in caves (Natural England 1994; Tittley 1988). Wave-cut platforms are present on the more sheltered south side of the headland, where the chalk is softer. There are no bedrock outcrops and the terraces are lower, often being covered by boulders, cobbles and pebbles (mostly flint). On the southern side especially, a well developed kelp forest of Laminaria hyperborea extends down to a depth of 4 m. This species does not recur further south until the Dover Strait. A total of 112 algal species have been recorded form the shores around Flamborough Head, with the greater proportion from the more sheltered sites (George et al., 1988). A wide variety of hydroids and bryzoans are dominant in the areas of strong tidal streams and sand scour, along with the soft coral Alconium digitatum and colonial sea squirts. A total of 270 invertebrates and 112 algal species have been recorded around Flamborough Head, with the greater proportion from sheltered sites. On the largely sedimentary coast to the south, intertidal invertebrates mainly consists of amphipods and polychaete worms with the distribution of communities depending upon particle size. The sublittoral macrobenthos

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 12

is typical of Jones’ (1950) ‘boreal offshore gravel association’ with horse mussels Modiolus modiolus, brittlestars Ophiothrix fragalis and the bryozoan Flustra foliacea characterising the fauna. The nationally rare bryozoan Smittina affinis is found in Selwick’s Bay to the north of Flamborough Head. Flamborough Head has been designated as a European Marine Site (EMS) based on the representative chalk-associated species and for the site’s location at the southern limit of distribution of several northern species. The site covers around 14% of UK and 9% of European coastal chalk exposure, represents the most northern outcrop of chalk in the UK, and includes bedrock and boulder reefs which extend further into deeper water than at other sub tidal chalk sites in the UK, giving one of the most extensive areas of sublittoral chalk in Europe. Flamborough is has unusually high levels of calcareous cliff vegetation. There are larger numbers and a wider range of cave habitats at Flamborough than at any other chalk site in Britain and is important for its specialised cave algal communities, which contain abundant Hildenbrandia rubra, Pseudendoclonium submarinum, Sphacelaria nana and Waerniella lucifuga. The Humber Estuary to the south is also a possible SAC whilst the Dogger Bank has been included as a draft SAC but not yet submitted to the European Commission. Figure 5: Flamborough Head EMS Delimitation

Scale 1:75,000

Source: Natural England In terms of the pelagic environment, Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) surveys indicate that the planktonic assemblage is made up of mainly neritic (coastal water species), although some southern intermediate (mixed water) species are also present. During autumn months, waters from the north-eastern part of the North Sea brings various oceanic species from the northwest. The spring phytoplankton bloom arrive sin coastal waters in around April and following the diatom bloom, dinoflagellates become prominent in the near-shore production zones (Williams et al, 1993). Total primary production is low (75-79 g C m-2 y-1) compared with the central and eastern North Sea, although rises in the vicinity of the Humber Estuary. The zooplankton is dominated by small copepods, especially in nearshore waters. Predatory zooplankton peak between May and September. The estuarine areas of the region are important habitats for birds and includes a number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs including the (i) Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast, (ii) Hornsea Mere (the largest freshwater lake in Yorkshire, situated less than 1 km from the sea) and (iii) Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPAs.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 13

2.6 BY-CATCH AND DISCARD 2.6.1 Incidental Catch The level of incidental catch is apparently very low, being confined to edible crab (1-2 boxes per fleet) over the new shelling period – otherwise baited pots seem to be selective for lobster rather than crab. It is also thought that lobsters will inhibit the subsequent entry into the pot by crabs. Velvet crabs (Portunus puber) are may be taken as a by-catch, but only during the early months of the year when lobster catches are very low (e.g. <10 t per month for the entire fishery) and the velvet crabs are the target species. Use of gear (by area and bait type and freshness) can change selectivity between lobster, crab and velvet crabs. Whelks are taken in discrete whelk pots and so comprise a limited by-catch. These is occasionally an unquantified by-catch of finfish such as pout (Trisopterus luscus) and ling (Molva spp.) but this is rare and fish are always returned to the sea alive. Discussions with the Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA) who have observed pot use in the area (see page 15) confirm that bycatch is limited to crab and small finfish (Jeremy Swarbrick, pers. comm.). It is thought that the finfish may not actually be trapped but be using the pot as a refuge. 2.6.2 Discards The pots are hauled onboard across roller systems to a handling area where the pots are emptied. Whilst crabs are retained all other species are discarded. Although not specifically studied, most material is alive and undamaged (although crustacea may lose limbs in the roller system) and post-release mortality is considered to be very low. In summary, there is little independent quantification of bycatch and discards from this fishery but by all accounts this is very low. Any discards are usually returned alive and in good condition. This position has been echoed by Natural England (Robbie Fisher, pers. comm..), so long as the current effort did not increase significantly. 2.6.3 Catch of Threatened, Rare and Iconic Species No rare, threatened or iconic species are caught in the pot fishery. The only known interaction with such species is when seals (unspecified) steal bait from the pots as they are dropped. This is rare and no preventative action is taken.

2.7 HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS 2.7.1 Habitat Impacts The pots are laid in fleets upon the benthic substrate, which tends to be harder ground such as gravel or gravely mud, in depths of around 20-30 m. Usual potting areas do not have strong tidal flows and currents rarely exceed 3 knots. Since pot fisheries are static the areas of seabed affected by each gear is likely to be insignificant compared with the widespread effects of mobile fishing gears. However, effort may be significant if concentrated in relatively small areas with communities of long-lived fauna. A recent study evaluated the effects of pot deployment and retrieval on supposedly fragile epifauna that are the subject of conservation interest in northern Europe (Eno et al., 1996). Not surprisingly, pots that landed on, or were hauled through beds of the foliose bryozoan Pentapora foliacea (Ellis and Solander) caused physical damage to the brittle colonies. However, contrary to expectations, sea pens, Pennatula phosphorea, Virgularia mirabilis O.F. Muller and Funiculina quadrangularis Pallas bent in response to the pressure wave created by the descending pot and lay flat on the seabed. Moreover, when uprooted, the sea pens were able to re-establish themselves in the sediment. Sea fans, Eunicella verrucosa, (Pallas) were also found to be more flexible than anticipated, and were not severely damaged when pots were hauled over them (Eno et al., 1996). These observations were interesting, because sea pens and sea fans were considered to be highly vulnerable to fishing activities (MacDonald et al., 1997). The study of

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 14

Eno et al. (1996) suggests that the direct contact of fishing gears with fauna may not be the primary cause of mortality and the frequency and intensity of physical contact is more likely to be important. It is understood that the pot fleet location will vary according to season and tide (Steve Cowan, pers. comm..) and thus it is highly unlikely that one particular area will continue to be impacted.

2.7.2 Gear Loss and Ghost Fishing Gear loss: in 1999 Seafish in the UK undertook a government funded study to, inter alia, investigate the extent and nature of problems associated with ghost fishing by shellfish traps that become permanently lost in UK waters (Swarbrick and Arkley, 1999). The project team undertook a survey of fishermen’s experiences of gear loss in the Northeast of England as well as other areas in the UK. The survey quantified effort levels, identified the main reasons for losing shellfish traps and looked at fishermen’s perceptions of the phenomenon. While average loss rates were reported in relation to other results e.g. perceptions of ghost fishing, the results are presented such that total loss rates were not deduced. The loss of pots is a major financial concern to fishermen – each pot costs around £55 and if pots are lost, it is usually as part of a fleet so both a number of pots as well as anchors and leadlines. Whilst gear loss from the fishery does occur, almost entirely through gear conflict with active gears such as trawlers, attempts are always made to recover lost fleets through ‘creeping’ with a specially-made grappling iron. As mentioned before, all fleets are marked by GPS to assist recovery in the event of loss. The placement of pots around wrecks is avoided to reduce the potential for snagging. Ghost fishing: the Swarbrick and Arkley survey showed that most fishermen do not believe that lost traps pose a threat to stocks. Many of those interviewed had recovered traps lost for varying periods of time and they seldom contained any catch. Most fishermen consider that pot catches reach an equilibrium after around 2-3 days (e.g. entrapment rates equal escape). In most cases they were damaged and had no residual fishing capability. A more significant source of unaccounted mortality on shellfish species was claimed to be from netters, beam trawlers and scallop dredgers. The authors noted there are some objective catch data which support these assertions. It should be noted however that since this research, there some concerns were raised in a workshop held in Brussels in May 2005 (Brown et al, 2005) that the loss of parlour pots may be an increasing problem because of their efficiency in retaining crabs (e.g. Philip MacMullen, Seafish, pers com). Other work elsewhere in the UK also suggests that lost traps can continue to fish - one study showed that lost or abandoned shellfish pots are still intact and capable of fishing effectively after 270 days (Bullimore et al 1996).

2.7.3 Ecosystem Impacts The dietary requirements of the main bycatch species, edible and velvet crab, are reasonably well known and reasonable presumptions can be made on their predatory patterns. Crabs are opportunistic predator/scavenger with no obligate predators, although they are more likely to be predated by larger gadoids, elasmobranchs etc. Pressure from this fishery is not known to exert a direct impact upon ecological system structure or functioning (including specific prey or predator species), although no specific studies have been produced. Routine environmental monitoring to date, especially around the Flamborough SAC, suggests that the current level of removal of non-target species is not having a significant impact on ecological systems within the inshore (i.e. <6 nm limit) environment. NESFC also have studies of benthic communities in areas of different fishing pressure, but results are not yet available.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 15

2.8 OTHER FISHERIES RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT Some large vessels that fish predominantly outside the 6 mile limit for brown crab, do move inshore to target lobsters when catch rates are at their highest in the summer months. As well as lobsters, pots catch brown and velvet crabs. The abundance of velvet crabs has increased in recent years and the fishery has developed as Continental markets were exploited. Fishers target the three species both spatially and temporally (seasonally), but mostly with the same parlour baited traps. Trawlers make incidental catches of lobsters. Voluntary reports from trawlers over the period 1999-2003 gave landings averaging between 6kg/vessel/year (1999) to 52kg/vessel/year (2003) and totalling a maximum of 1.2 tonnes in 2000, a relatively small amount compared to the main pot fishery. Netting effort with single sheet and trammel nets targeted at cod, bass or sole land a small incidental bycatch of lobsters. There are specific byelaw conditions which apply to netting activity. There are three trawl-free zones within the assessment area: Staithes to Sandsend (Whitby), Filey Bay, and Whitter (near Hornsea) to Spurn Point. The byelaw (Byelaw III1) implementing these zones was established to reduce habitat damage, limit exploitation of whitefish stocks, and protect crustacean stocks and conflicts with fixed gear such as pots. Demersal trawling within the NESFC District is subject to a permit scheme, by vessels not exceeding 18.3m overall length and 400Kw engine power. Six vessels exceeding these limits exist under a ‘sunset’ provision. Restrictions also apply to scallop dredging to protect crustacean stocks and manage environmental impacts. Dredging is only allowed between 1 October and 30 June within the 3-6 miles of the District with not more than 10 dredges with rings >75mm or net >100mm. There is fishing for whelks offshore but the pots are specific to whelking and lobsters are unlikely to be caught.

1 See http://www.neseafish.gov.uk/nesfc/bylaws.html

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 16

3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT 3.1 LEGISLATION 3.1.1 General There are three levels of fisheries legislation applicable to the lobster fishery. At the highest level are European Community (EC) Council Regulations of the Common Fisheries Policy which can apply to several countries. This is followed by United Kingdom (UK) national legislation applicable to UK vessels, and finally local bylaws implemented by the North East Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) that only apply within their fisheries district which extends offshore for six nautical miles from baselines (see 3.2). The 0-6 mile zone is exclusive to UK vessels. There are no historic access rights for foreign vessels to fish for shellfish within the 6-12 nautical mile belt of the UK fisheries limits off the NESFC District. Enforcement of the EC and National regulations is carried out in England and Wales by the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA), a government executive agency responsible to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The NESFC (one of 12 in England & Wales) are responsible for the enforcement of their own byelaws. They also have ‘cross warranting’ powers to enforce certain EC and UK legislation in the inshore fisheries. All commercial UK fishing vessels need to be registered with the Registry of Seamen & Shipping, part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency based in Cardiff. Since April 2004 all UK shellfish vessels fishing for profit must have a shellfish licence issued by DEFRA. This has capped the number of vessels that can exploit shellfish. These licences apply to the whole of the UK, that is, there is no restriction on the areas within the UK that can be fished. Unregistered and unlicensed vessels are limited to landing not more than 5 lobsters and 25 crabs per day. There is also a shellfish by-catch limit (currently 5%) for trawlers. Vessels can be replaced but are subject to fishing power restrictions expressed as VCUs (vessel capacity units – a formula incorporating vessel size and engine power ([Length (m) x Breadth (m)] + 0.45 Engine Power (kW)])). To obtain a larger vessel VCUs from smaller boats may be aggregated, but are subject to an aggregation penalty. From 1st January 2006 a condition of the UK shellfish licence is that logbook information on the area fished, fishing effort and shellfish landings must be supplied, even for under 10 metre vessels (currently excluded from detailed reporting). NESFC also have a shellfish permit scheme that controls access to the inshore fishery (see 3.1.3 below). There are no EC or UK TACs (Total Allowable Catches) or quotas for lobsters, but there are technical measures (see 3.1.2 below). Shellfish vessels are not subject to the days at sea fishing effort restrictions that apply in certain finfish fisheries. Sellers and buyers of first sale shellfish, and fish, must be registered with DEFRA and keep records of their transactions. Most shellfish vessels operate independently, outside the Fishery Producer Organisations. The UK national enforcement programme, carried out by the MFA, includes the inspection of fishing vessels and fishing industry premises in the major fishing ports, fish markets and other locations around the coast and further inland by MFA officers. Fishing vessels are also inspected at sea by the Royal Navy’s Fishery Protection Squadron operating under a DEFRA/Ministry of Defence agreement. There is also a programme of aerial surveillance. Enforcement is governed by set objectives and performance monitoring, and any action taken by fishery officers is well recorded. Monitoring of the fishery includes fishery officers sampling vessels to observe fishing and to record total landings and discards.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 17

3.1.2 Species Specific The main regulation in the UK lobster fishery is the minimum landing size (MLS). This is currently (since 1st January 2002) 87 mm carapace length (CL) (EC Council Regulation 850/98 (Annex XII)), though UK legislation implemented an increase to 87 mm CL on 1st January 2000. Some SFCs (e.g. South Wales SFC) have bylaws increasing the MLS to 90 mm CL and are considering a maximum landing size. Within the NESFC District the EC MLS of 87mm CL is applied. Carapace length is measured parallel to the midline, from the back of either eye socket to the distal edge of the carapace (‘a’ in the figure opposite). Undersized lobsters must be returned immediately to the sea. Only whole lobsters may be retained on board the vessel and landed. DEFRA have been considering implementing a ban on the landing of berried (ovigerous) lobsters. This proposal went out to consultation with the industry, and it is believed that many fishers were against the proposal, preferring to see an increase in the minimum landing size. There are also regulations prohibiting the landing of lobster parts and ‘V’ notched lobsters (see Byelaw XXI below). 3.1.3 Local Byelaws SFC byelaws only apply within the SFC district, which extends six nautical miles offshore from the baselines used for defining UK territorial waters (see 3.2). Within the NESFC district there are four NESFC byelaws directly applicable to lobsters: - (a) Byelaw XXII. Permit to fish for and sell lobster, crab, velvet crab and whelk. (b) Byelaw XIV. Removal of parts of lobsters from any fishery: prohibition of. (c) Byelaw X. Shellfish: re-deposit of. (d) Byelaw XXI. Protection of ‘V’ notched lobsters. In addition Byelaw XX. Prohibition on the use of crab (Cancer pagurus) for bait, has an influence on the baiting of lobster pots (see 2.3.1). Byelaw XXII. Permit to fish for and sell lobster, crab, velvet crab and whelk, has the following main conditions: - 1. Any vessel wishing to fish within the Committee’s District using static gear requires a permit. Vessels that only use trawls are exempt. 2. Permits are only issued to vessels that do not exceed 16.0 metres overall length. 3. Permits are non-transferable. 4. Permit holders shall make accurate and timely monthly returns of area fished, gears and fishing effort, and landings. 5. Pots and nets shall be marked with surface markers showing the vessel’s port registration letters and numbers. 6. This byelaw does not apply to fishers using less than 10 pots or 100 metres of net to fish for personal consumption, landing a maximum of 2 lobsters, 10 crabs and 30 whelks per day per boat.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 18

This byelaw, introduced in 1999, has allowed the SFC to quantify the number of vessels in their fishery and has provided valuable fishery statistics to monitor and manage the lobster fishery (see 4.2). While the byelaw places a limit on the size of vessels, there is no limit on the number of permits that can be issued. There is currently no overall limit on effort, although some discussion has taken place on the possibility of a pot limitation scheme. Byelaw XIV. Removal of parts of lobsters from any fishery prohibition of, is a straightforward ban on the landing of lobster parts and ensures compliance and enforcement of the 87 mm CL MLS. Byelaw X. Shellfish: re-deposit of, states that prohibited shellfish, e.g. undersized lobsters, shall be returned without injury and as nearly as possible in the place that it was taken. This ensures maximum survival of undersized lobsters, which can then grow above the MLS and be legally landed. Byelaw XXI. Protection of ‘V’ notched lobsters, is an interesting development linked to a project aimed at enhancing the size of the lobster spawning stock biomass and ultimately increasing recruitment to the fishable stock (see 5.1). The Committee undertook a project, jointly financed by themselves and other sponsors (EC FIFG programme, Regional Development Commission, B.P. Exploration, Yorkshire Water, Cleveland Potash, and Bridlington & Flamborough Fishermen’s Society) to pay for and release ‘V’ notched female lobsters. Ovigerous (berried – i.e. carrying eggs) lobsters were marked by cutting a ‘V’ notch in the tail (uropods), which would remain visible until lost at a subsequent moulting of the shell. A total of 19,842 ‘V’ notched lobsters was released between 1998-2004. Releases were made throughout the District in proportion to the level of potting effort. This byelaw, introduced in 1998, aims to ensure that ‘V’ notched lobsters are immediately returned to the sea, and are not landed. NESFC Fishery Officers took a ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement approach.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 19

3.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS The ultimate responsibility for shellfish management in England and Wales lies with the Minister for DEFRA. The Minister, a politician, is supported by civil servants in a policy and management division (Fisheries Directorate) and an enforcement and operational activities Executive Agency (MFA). The UK, as a member of the EC, is party to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of EC Council Regulations. For lobsters this is restricted to the technical measures of a MLS of 87 mm CL and the banning of the landing of lobster parts. DEFRA is responsible for initiating and implementing national legislation, this includes the fishing vessel licensing arrangements (see 3.1.1). Some national technical regulations for lobsters are now superseded by EC Council Regulations. The MFA is responsible for the enforcement of the EC and UK legislation. Scientific advice on fisheries management and environmental issues is provided by CEFAS, an Executive Agency of DEFRA. Sea Fishery Committees are established by the DEFRA Minister, but funded by a levy on their constituent local Councils. Half the members are appointed by the constituent Councils, the other half, who should have fisheries or environmental experience, are appointed by DEFRA, together with one member appointed by the Environment Agency. SFCs regulate sea fisheries in their districts by means of byelaws. Byelaws can regulate fishing methods and fishing gear, restrict fishing seasons, set minimum sizes for fish and shellfish, manage and protect shellfish beds or control fishing for environmental purposes. Byelaws come into force when confirmed by the Secretary of State (DEFRA), after advertisement for objections. SFCs appoint their own fishery officers for the purpose of enforcing their byelaws. SFC fishery officers may also be involved with the enforcement of a range of national and EC fisheries legislation in coastal waters either independently or, as British Sea Fisheries Officers, in conjunction with the MFA. Clearly there are formal legislation-based interactions between DEFRA, MFA, CEFAS and NESFC, but there are also informal links between local staff and other representatives of the various organisations.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 20

4 STOCK ASSESSMENT

4.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT DEFRA tends to look at lobster fisheries across the whole of the country. It is difficult to identify separate lobster stocks, and assessments are therefore usually grouped geographically, or by Sea Fisheries Committee districts. The regulations apply across the whole country (some across many EU countries), though SFC byelaws do make additional local regulations. The identification of lobster stocks in terms of biological features is somewhat equivocal. While it is well established that larger juvenile and adult lobsters, in the main, only make limited localised movements, little is known about the distribution of the larval phase or small juveniles. Lobster larvae are difficult to sample and a survey along the NE coast only caught a very small number. There were localised studies in Bridlington Bay that suggested a “hot spot” of larval abundance that appeared to persist, suggesting a possibility of some hydrographic containment. The fishery being assessed is described geographically as “The Yorkshire coast between Staithes and Spurn Point and seaward to the 6 mile limit”. Spurn Point and the Humber Estuary may well be the southern limit of a lobster stock that extends more or less continuously northwards along the NE coast of England and Scotland. Staithes is not the northern limit. Lobsters also extend offshore well beyond the six-mile limit that defines the NESFC District and the fishery being assessed. Catch sampling shows that lobsters caught beyond the six-mile limit are larger than those inshore, with a high proportion of large berried (ovigorous) females. It has been suggested (Addison, pers. comm.) that these females could well be the main source of recruitment to the inshore areas. While it is not possible to define in biological terms a lobster stock within the area being assessed, it is a clearly defined unit effectively managed by the NESFC. They have specific byelaws which apply to the fishery and DEFRA tends to rely upon SFCs to manage inshore fisheries on a local basis.

4.2 MONITORING OF STOCK STATUS DEFRA has a monitoring programme for most fisheries, though they tend to concentrate on species and fisheries subject to TACs and quota management. They do collect landings and value statistics, but mainly from the larger (>10m) vessels that are obliged to complete EU logbooks. The recording of shellfishing effort information is poor. There is a biological sampling programme (BSP) undertaken by the MFA to record size and sex of lobster landings. The level of target achievement is somewhat variable. CEFAS also monitor the NE coast lobster fishery, as part of their scientific commission from DEFRA. They carry out periodic sampling ‘blitzes’ of catch and landings, and have a number of voluntary logbook participants who provide detailed landings and effort information. The NESFC permit scheme provides an additional source of data. A condition of the shellfishing permit is the provision of monthly returns of the weight of lobsters (and crabs) landed, the number of pots, the number of days pots at sea, and the number of pot landings. NESFC also undertake sampling of lobster catches at sea to record the number, sex and size of both landings and discards. The NESFC officers are in continual contact with fishers on their ‘patch’ and receive anecdotal information on a regular basis. There appears to be no recent comprehensive assessments of the lobster fisheries in the NESFC District. The NESFC does undertake some fairly basic analysis of their permit data. No attempt has been made by the Committee or DEFRA and CEFAS to pull together all the data and make a comprehensive analysis for time trends and consider a modelling based assessment.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 21

4.3 MODELLING Lobster biology is very similar around the coast, and lobsters generally migrate very little, so that even though lobster stock structure is not well understood data could be grouped on a geographic basis, and is considered to be robust and not to influence assessment results unduly. Studies on maturity and egg production of lobster have been used to support minimum size calculations. CEFAS has pioneered studies on whether the size range and catch rate of lobster and crab caught in pots tell a true story about the state of exploitation. It has shown that pot design can influence size distributions, and that the number of crustacea caught by traps depends not only on density, but also on competition between individuals within and between species. Length based assessments, such as length cohort analysis, have been used to enumerate how many animals are landed in each size group, and convert this to an age structure by applying a growth curve. The age structure is then used to calculate the fishing rate, and to predict the effects of changes in either the fishing rate (F) or the minimum landing size (MLS), or both. These procedures require the use of numerical and statistical models, and assumptions about stock structure, natural death rate, and juvenile abundance. Their accuracy depends on the quality of the landings data, and how well the size distribution and growth data represent the biological reality of complex life cycles. It seems fairly clear from the size composition data collected by both NESFC and CEFAS that there is a high exploitation rate on the inshore lobster grounds off the NE coast, with a predominance of lobsters in the landings that are just above the MLS. However, in the absence of a valid recent assessment, using a length-based model such as length cohort analysis, it is not clear what is the current status of the stock. Having said that, from the available analysis of the landings and effort information from the permit scheme, the LPUE appears to be relatively constant across the last 5 years, though there is some indication of a recent increase in potting effort. These data suggest steady recruitment, but a fishery very dependent each year upon recruits into the fishable stock. The available data merit additional analysis to attempt to provide a more reliable assessment of the current status of the lobster stock.

4.4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE As the EU does not seek management advice from ICES, and DEFRA had no specific or explicit management plan for lobsters, advice is sought and given on a rather ad hoc basis. The stimulus for action can arise directly from within DEFRA, by the production of scientific advice from CEFAS, by concerns raised by conservation minded sections of the shellfishing industry, or by pressure applied by environmental interests. The time scales between drawing attention for the need for management and the implementation of new regulations can extend into years. A basic principle of good management for crustacea is to set a minimum landing size (MLS) in order to prevent animals being captured before they reach maturity. In recent years the MLS has been raised from 80 mm carapace length (CL) to the current 87 mm CL. This is well above the female 50% maturity size of 83 mm CL off Yorkshire, and should have resulted in an increase in the protection of the spawning stock and increased egg and larval production. There may also have been some gains in yield-per-recruit, though increases in fishing effort are likely to have subsequently negated these benefits. CEFAS and DEFRA have also raised the issue of the need for effort control. The introduction of the national shellfish licensing scheme has capped the UK fleet in terms of VCUs. During the consultation phase, prior to implementation, the question of applying the licensing on a regional or local basis was raised. Additionally, other options were raised, such as restricting the number of pots, together with the possible prohibition of parlour pots, seasonal and area-based

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 22

restrictions, and a maximum landing size. There has been a recent consultation on the banning of the landing of berried female lobsters. One lobster merchant raised the issue of the landing of poor quality soft recently moulted lobsters that have a poor survival rate in storage tanks. This is a quality control problem best solved by merchants establishing a coherent buying policy that excludes the purchase of soft lobsters.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 23

5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT 5.1 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES There are no explicit EC or UK management plan or hence objectives for lobsters. Lobsters are not currently subject to the ICES scientific assessment and management advice procedures. DEFRA’s website expresses a general objective: - “Sustainability lies at the heart of DEFRA’s aim and objectives. Sustainable use of fisheries - economically, environmentally and socially - is central to our work. It is vital both to secure the future for our fisheries industries and to contribute to national and global environmental objectives.” There are implicit management objectives that may be deduced from recent management actions. The raising of the MLS and the capping of VCU fishing effort via the Shellfish Licence are aimed at reducing the risks of growth overfishing and particularly recruitment failure. The rationale for these actions is semi-quantitative, being based on generic length-based assessments which indicate the potential for yield-per-recruit and egg-production- per –recruit increases if the MLS is increased and fishing effort capped or reduced. The NESFC are the main enforcement agency in relation to this fishery and are cross warranted with the MFA to enforce certain national legislation, as well as their own byelaws. The lack of explicit management objectives results in control and compliance performance being assessed against operational targets. Corrective action against non-complying fishers ranges from a verbal warning to court action and penalties, which include fines and custodial sentences. The large majority of fishers are fully compliant with the main MLS regulation. To assess the extent of compliance NESFC has statistics showing the number of boardings and inspections, the verbal warnings, and the prosecuted offences. Convictions for lobster offences were less than 1% of the boardings and inspections undertaken. The NESFC, EA and DEFRA (MFA) keep up to date records of all cautions and enforcement actions in relation to this fishery and they are published and in the public domain. NESFC monitor CPUE and LPUE and have recently set performance targets for 2006: “Total annual lobster landings per unit effort exceeds the baseline value of 0.015 kilograms per pot day within the Committee’s jurisdiction. Total annual lobster catch per unit effort exceeds the baseline value of 0.8 lobsters per pot.” While these performance targets are to be welcomed as a means of objectively assessing the stock status and providing a decision rule, there are certain significant reservations that the assessors consider need urgent attention. It is not clear whether the measure of fishing effort being estimated from the permit data is the most appropriate for the calculation of LPUE. The assessors were unable to determine in the time available whether the fishers were fully aware of what information they should be entering on the monthly shellfish catch return form. It will be fruitful to compare the information from the NESFC permit scheme with the DEFRA licensing data returns when they become available during 2006. There is a need for a more rigorous and intensive analysis of the permit scheme database. This should be coupled with the additional data available currently and in the future from DEFRA and CEFAS. The NESFC programme of ‘V’ notching berried females in this fishery since 1998, had a stated aim of enhancing the size of the lobster spawning stock biomass and ultimately increasing recruitment to the fishable stock (See 3.1.3). The programme was enforced by a byelaw to ensure that ‘V’ notched lobsters were immediately returned to the sea, and are not landed. While this project will have gone some way to achieving its objectives, it is very difficult to quantitatively evaluate the increase in recruitment and the cost-benefit. Clearly a more effective way of achieving the objective of enhancing recruitment would be a further increase in MLS, or the imposition of a ban on the landing of berried lobsters, though there are serious enforcement issues with the latter.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 24

It is unfortunate in many ways that the bycatch of velvet crabs off Yorkshire has become so financially important. Ideally, with such high catch rates for undersized lobsters, escape gaps would have been a very beneficial measure. They would allow undersized lobsters to escape on the seabed, and not have to be handled on deck. However, escape gaps suitable for lobsters would also let most velvet crabs escape. Fishers in Bridlington have been using a sheet of plastic in the base of pots to prevent lobster, and crab, legs and claws protruding from the pot base and being damaged during the hauling and emptying process on deck. This practice should be further encouraged as ‘best practice’, and if necessary could be considered for a new byelaw.

5.2 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS At local level, fishermen are represented by the Flamborough and Bridlington Fishermen’s Society (FBFS), which is based in Bridlington. The Society has around 35 members, representing about 95% of the local lobster fleet (Sue Wilson, FBFS Secretary), covering both the inshore (< 6 nm) and offshore fleets. The main benefits of membership are (i) inclusion in liaison with the Harbour Authority, (ii) liaison with the NESFC and (iii) being able to access compensation funds for closed areas and other restrictions. The FBFS is a member of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO). There are mechanisms at National level for issues to be raised by industry (often via the NFFO) and other bodies with National Governments and resolved where possible by them. The European Commission is also accessible to interested parties to make direct representations. The Commission may well decide to ask the Member State concerned for its opinion before taking the matter forward. Consideration by the Commission may range from a meeting between D G Fish and the complainant to formal discussion in the Commission's Fisheries Advisory Committee. Any necessary legislative action would be on the basis of a proposal by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Disputes between the Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers if bilateral discussions have not been able to resolve the issue. Both the Commission and the Council of Ministers can be called to account through the normal political process in the European Parliament. Ultimately, any European Citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. This is a system which is widely known and has been used when considered necessary. The 2001 / 2002 review of the CFP included ‘roadshows’ led by the Commission and other Consultation processes with all relevant stakeholders including industry and NGO groups. These were designed to provide maximum transparency and feedback about the shape the post 2002 CFP should take.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 25

6 STANDARD USED

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.

PRINCIPLE 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 2: Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Criteria: 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

PRINCIPLE 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

2 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 26

Criteria: 1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

PRINCIPLE 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. A. Management System Criteria: 1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. The management system shall: 2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process. 3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. 4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability. 5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system3. 6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. 7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

3 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 27

8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion. 9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted. 10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to: a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate. 11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are. B. Operational Criteria Fishing operation shall: 12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive. 13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. 14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives; 15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc. 16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements. 17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 28

7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 7.1 EVALUATION TEAM Evaluation leader: Tim Huntington: Tim Huntington is Founder and Director of the Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd, a UK-based international consultancy specialising in fisheries, aquaculture and aquatic environment. He has over twenty years experience in aquaculture and fisheries as a fisheries biologist. He has designed, managed and directed coastal, marine and freshwater resource management projects in Europe and many other countries worldwide and is an environmental impact assessment specialist with wide-ranging experience of fisheries and aquaculture development world-wide. He has recent experience in fisheries, aquaculture and ‘chain of custody’ certification. Recent or ongoing projects he has taken part in include assessment of World Fisheries By-catch Issues for FAO; Feasibility Study for the Environmental Certification of Aquaculture for MSC; Assessment of Environmental Variables for Inclusion in the Common Fisheries Policy (EU); Evaluation of the NAFO Fisheries Observer Programme (EU) and Valuation of Biodiversity Damage for Environmental Liability (EU). Tim Huntington led the assessment against Principle 2, but also contributed on Principles 3 and 1. Expert advisor: Dr. David Bennett. David Bennett has 36 years experience in fisheries research, specialising in the biology, population dynamics, and assessment of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks, the provision of national and international fisheries management advice, and fisheries aspects of environmental impact studies. Dr. Bennett has particular experience in UK crustacean fisheries and has been a member of various ICES Working and Study Groups (Homarus (lobster), Pandalus and Crangon (shrimps), Majidae (spider crab), Irish Sea and Bristol Channel (fish)) and chaired the Working Group on Nephrops stocks (1994-97). He peer reviewed the MSC assessment of the Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. David Bennett led on Principles 1 and 3 but also contributed on Principle 2. Expert advisor: Dr. John Nichols. John Nichols is a retired UK government fisheries biologist with 42 years research experience in plankton ecosystems, including ichthyoplankton, in the North Atlantic. From 1977 he was involved in plankton surveys for stock assessment. From 1994 to 2000 he was involved in the assessment of pelagic and western demersal fish stocks, including North Sea herring and Thames Estuary herring, running a team of six permanent staff. He has been a member of ICES working groups on herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy assessments; and mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys. He was also a member of ICES study groups on herring larval surveys and plankton sampling. John provided management advice in relation to the MSC certification of the Thames Estuary Driftnet herring fishery. John Nichols contributed to all Principles. 7.2 PEER REVIEW The draft report (v2) was reviewed by two independent specialists: Patrick Franklin: Mr. Franklin has a degree in Marine Biology and Zoology from the University College of North Wales, Bangor, and is Director of Homarus Ltd. Dr. Graham Pickett: Dr. Pickett worked for 37 years with DFR/CEFAS until his retirement in April 2005.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 29

7.3 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS No previous certification evaluations have been carried out for the NESFC lobster fishery. There is currently an assessment of the NESFC sea bass fishery being conducted by the same team in parallel to this assessment.

7.4 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations within the NESFC area, the mechanisms and effectiveness of management agencies (DEFRA and the NESFC) and the operation of the fishers. The landing and subsequent handling of fish was also investigated to determine the suitability of fish landed to enter into a subsequent chain of custody. Meetings were held as follows. The key issues discussed have been identified for each meeting. Name Affiliation Date Key Issues David McCandless NESFC 11/10/05 Fisheries research and management Simon Prince Steven Cowan Flamborough and 12/10/05 Fisheries operation and management Bridlington Fisherman’s Society Robbie Fisher Natural England 12/10/05 Conservation issues Steve Bailey Environment 12/10/05 Conservation issues and interactions Agency with salmonid fisheries Gary Hodgeson Independent Shell 12/10/05 Fisheries operation and management Sue Wilson Fisherman’s Co- op (Bridlington) Jo Ackers Ltd Nick Garside Defra 12/10/05 Fisheries management (Scarborough) Terry Pearson Alliance Shellfish 12/10/05 Marketing and chain of custody issues Merchants David McCandless NESFC 13/10/05 Post-site visit debriefing meeting Laura Farr Yorkshire Forward Nigel Procter University of Hull 13/10/05 Recreational fisheries activities Mike Pawson CEFAS 17/10/05 Fisheries research Julian Addison CEFAS 13/12/05 Fisheries research Steve Lovewell Ken Arkley Seafish Industry Contacted By-catch and gear use Gary Dunlin Authority by phone

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 30

8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

8.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION An eventual total of 18 stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine over both the consultation and fieldwork periods . Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment: Table 1: Stakeholder Consultations Held Date Purpose Media 03 June 2005 Notification of confirmation of Direct E-mail/letter assessment Notification on MSC website Advertisement in press O6 July 2005 Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail nominees Notification on MSC website 29 July 2005 Confirmation of Assessment Team Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 17 August 2005 Consultation on draft Scoring Direct E-mail Indicators and Guideposts Notification on MSC website 13 September Notification of assessment visit Direct E-mail 2005 and call for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 10 – 13 October Assessment visit Meetings 2005 10 March 2006 Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail Reviewers Notification on MSC website 17 October 2006 Notification of Draft Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 13 April 2007 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website

8.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES Feedback from stakeholders was also received on the scoring indicators and guideposts. However no specific issues were raised other than those covered earlier in this report. The draft Report (v3) was put out for stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days on 6th November 2006. No comments were received from stakeholders.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 31

9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING

9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Scoring Criteria against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. Performance is determined on the basis of compliance with each Scoring Criterion. The Scoring Criteria developed by the Moody Marine assessment team have been identified on the MSC website (Certification Performance Criteria and Scoring Guidelines). In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator. These generic Scoring Indicators and Guideposts have been the subject of stakeholder consultation and have been confirmed or modified following this process based on the judgement of the assessment team. Prior to scoring, the Indicators are also ‘weighted’ in relative importance according to the nature of the fishery undergoing certification. At the top level, no weightings are assigned in terms of each MSC Principle; a fishery must ‘pass’ each of Principles 1, 2 and 3 in order to achieve certification and these are of equal importance. Within each Principle, Scoring Indicators are grouped in a hierarchy. Each level represents separate areas of important information (e.g. Indicator 1.1 requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). At the level of Performance Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. A score 100 (represents the level of performance for a performance indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a performance indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each performance indicator for that type of fishery). A score below 60 for a performance indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment, unless performance is improved as a pre-condition to certification. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles. Weights and scores for the NESFC lobster fishery are presented in the scoring table. Weights for criteria, sub-criteria and sub-sub criteria add to a total of 100 for each Principle or Scoring Indicator, Scores are allocated relative to the Scoring Guidelines.

9.2 EVALUATION RESULTS Observations are presented in the scoring table, together with any weighting applied to the Fishery and the scores allocated.

10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY

The extent of the fishery certification is the landing of lobster (Homarus gammarus) caught off the Yorkshire coast between Staithes and Spurn Point and seaward to the 6 mile limit. To be eligible to carry the MSC logo, these fish must then enter into separate Chain of Custody certifications.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 32

11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION

11.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION The Performance of the NESFC Lobster Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below: MSC Principle Fishery Performance Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock 73 Fail Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem 82 Pass Principle 3: Effective Management System 88 Pass

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against Principles 2 and 3. However it scored less than 80 against any MSC Principle 1. It is therefore not recommended that the NESFC Lobster Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries unless the preconditions in the following Section are met.

11.2 PRE-CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION 11.2.1 Pre-Conditions The fishery scored less than 80 against Principle 1. Three pre-conditions have therefore been set. If these are achieved within the stated time frame then the fishery can be reconsidered within the current assessment process, assuming no other changes have occurred within the management of the fishery which require extensive re-scoring. Within the specified time period, the fishery is invited to contact Moody Marine as and when it is considered that the pre-conditions have been met. At this time, Moody Marine will carry out an expedited audit on the overall operation of the fishery and the effect of any changes in the fishery, stock and management system since the time of this assessment (in line with MSC Surveillance procedures). We will then re-score those indicators identified below, review our recommendation and re-issue an up-dated final report and determination. The relevant 21-day period for objections to this determination will apply. Pre-Condition 1. Review and analyse fishery data Action required: Substantial amounts of data have been collected by NESFC, CEFAS and DEFRA but they have not been fully integrated, analysed or assessed. The data collected includes landings, catches, fishing effort, LPUE/CPUE, size composition, sex ratio and the proportion of berried females. Data for relevant areas outside the fishery being assessed (e.g. outside 6-mile limit) should be included. Prior to certification being granted, the Client must carry out a comprehensive inventory of the available data, compilation of data sets, statistical and trend analysis to indicate the current stock status, and provide direction for a future monitoring programme. Timescale: This precondition, must be completed within 3 years of the date of the submission by Moody Marine of the draft report to the client, NESFC. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.1.5, 1.1.6.1, 3A.5.2

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 33

Pre-Condition 2. Stock Assessment Action required: Carry out a stock assessment to provide stock status, explore management options, and develop appropriate reference points. Consideration should be given to the issue of stock identity. If the fishery, as defined here, is considered to be part of a larger unit stock, then existing local data should be complemented, as necessary, by suitable inputs from the fishery outside 6 miles, and possibly to the north. It is recommended that a length cohort analysis (LCA), or more appropriate model, should be used to explore options for management, and define management objectives and reference points appropriate to this fishery. It is expected that this condition would follow on from successful completion of Pre-Condition 1. Timescale: This precondition, must be completed within 3 years of the date of the submission by Moody Marine of the draft report to the client, NESFC. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.3.1, 1.1.5.1, 1.1.5.2, 1.1.5.3, 1.1.5.4, 1.1.5.5, 1.1.6.1, 1.3.1.3, 3A.5.2, and 3A.6.2.

Pre-Condition 3. Management Plan Action required: Produce a management plan that specifies objectives, decision rules and a harvest strategy that, if appropriate, includes fishing effort control. Consideration should also be given to future research and development requirements. Timescale: A pre-requisite of this precondition is the satisfactory completion of Pre-Conditions 1 and 2. The management plan should be completed no later than six months after achievement of the first two preconditions. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.4.1, 1.1.4.2, 1.1.4.3, 1.1.5.3, 1.1.6.1, 3A.3.1, 3A.3.3, 3A.3.4, 3A.6.2, and 3A.6.3.

11.2.2 Conditions The fishery attained a score below 80 against a number of Scoring Indicators. Should the fishery meet the preconditions set above and subsequently successfully obtain certification, a number of conditions have been set for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. The conditions are associated with two key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses a number of Scoring Indicators. Condition, associated timescale and relevant Scoring Indicators are set out below. Condition 1. Quantification of traps lost Action required: It is noted that the rate of trap loss by the fishery is not fully quantified. It is therefore required that an appropriate system for determining these losses, together with their causes, is developed. Timescale: Within one year of certification being confirmed. Relevant Scoring Indicator: 2.1.3.2

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 34

Condition 2. Assessment of consequences and control of (non-target) edible and velvet crab by-catch Action required: The bycatch of edible and velvet crabs in this mixed fishery may have consequences on the sustainability of these two species. It is therefore important that the NESFC conduct an assessment of the impact of these by-catches on the appropriate stocks and recommend any necessary management control measures to ensure that the fishery under assessment does not contribute to their depletion. Timescale: Within two years of certification being confirmed. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.4.1, 2.1.4.2, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2

Condition 3. External review Action required: Set up a procedure drawing on independent reviewers to assess the justification, implementation, and performance monitoring of the latest management proposals. Timescale: Within two years of certification being confirmed. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 3A.1.4

11.2.3 Recommendations No recommendations beyond the above pre-conditions and conditions have been set.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 35

12 AGREEMENT

12.1 APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO MEET SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. No Action Plan will be prepared until the pre-conditions have been met.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 36

APPENDICES Appendix A: Scoring Table

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 37 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those 33.3 73 populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 33.3 70 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 1.1.1 There should be sufficient information on the target species and stock separation to allow the effects of the fishery on the stock to be 16.7 evaluated. Weighting Commentary No weighting is applied to the MSC Principles – these are equally weighted and each must attain a weighted score of 80 or more for certification to be granted. Within MSC Criterion 1, each element at the next level of the scoring hierarchy (1.1.1 to 1.1.6) is considered to be of equal importance Species identification (1.1.1.1) was weighted high as it is fundamental to 1.1.1. Stock, size, abundance and nature also important. Other elements in 1.1.1 have a longer time scale for assessment. 1.1.1.1 Are the species readily identified as adults and juveniles? 17.2 100 60 Some misidentification may occur but does not There are no problems with the identification of the European lobster (Homarus threaten stock assessment and monitoring. gammarus). There are very occasional records of individual American lobsters (Homarus 80 The target species is unlikely to be confused with americanus) being caught in UK waters, presumed to have escaped from storage facilities any other species. or been released on ‘compassionate grounds’. The differences between the two species 100 The species is readily identifiable by fishers and are not obvious to the un-trained eye, but this is not a significant problem. regulators. Larvae also readily identified

1.1.1.2 Is the life history of the species understood and the spawning and nursery area defined? 13.3 85 60 There are some gaps in information but the basis In relative terms the life history of lobsters is well researched and documented. However, of the life history is understood. There is some there are some gaps in the knowledge, particularly in relation to the source of recruitment information on spawning and nursery areas. and larval distribution. This impinges on the ability to clearly define stock identity (see 80 The life history of the species is clearly 1.1.1.3). documented and understood. Spawning and nursery areas are well described. There is a gap in knowledge from settlement until juveniles recruit to the fishery – a 100 The life history of the species is clearly cryptic phase in the life history. documented and understood including behaviour and ecological interactions. Spawning and nursery areas are well described in spatial- temporal detail.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 1 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.3 Is the geographical range of the target stock known? 12.6 75 60 An estimate of the geographical range of the The geographical range of the species is well known along the NE coast of England and R24. Hepper, 1978. target stock is available. A management unit Scotland, with a cut off to the south at Spurn Point and possible sub-populations moving R26. Nichols and approximating the stock may be used with some north. Seasonal availability well known, and lobsters are fairly localised in their Lovewell, 1987. biological justification. movements R22. Eaton et al, 80 A reliable estimate of the geographic range of the 2003. target stock is available including seasonal More offshore grounds are being exploited as fishing with traps has expanded with the patterns of movement/availability. Scientific use of larger vessels. There is extensive sampling of landings, some sampling of catch, research is used to support the stock combined with tagging studies to establish population structure and seasonal patterns of identification. movement and availability. 100 The complete geographic range of the stock, including seasonal patterns of Lobsters are mainly caught in the assessment area by baited traps. There are incidental movement/availability, is estimated and catches by trawlers and nets, but these are insignificant. The extent of the pot fishery is documented each year. Extensive scientific well established and documented. research is used to justify stock identification. There is some evidence of larval retention within Bridlington bay. The Flamborough hydrographic front occurs within the assessed area. Limited movement of adults and larger juveniles, but difficult to discriminate populations. In-offshore relationships more significant – berried females offshore may be more significant for recruitment

There is some doubt about the identification of a unit stock, particularly in relation to a relatively small area like that being assessed here, i.e. the Yorkshire coast between Staithes and Spurn Point and seaward to the 6-mile limit. However, the MSC guidelines allow for the certification of a well defined fishery with a distinct method of fishing where it is part of a known unit stock that is assessed and shown to be compliant with Principle 1. This issue needs to be addressed further and is mentioned in Precondition 2.

The following comments and scores mainly relate to the fishery within the area of the NESFC being assessed, and should be evaluated bearing in mind the unresolved issue of stock identity.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 2 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.4 Is there information on fecundity/size at maturity/ recruitment/growth and factors causing 13.8 80 natural mortality? 60 There is sufficient information available on the As with most Crustacean stocks there are difficulties and problems in gathering sufficient R23. Free and Tyler, fecundity, size at maturity, growth and natural population dynamics biological data to allow stock assessments on a par with those 1992.. R20. Bannister mortality to support a basic assessment. carried out for many fin-fish. Fecundity and size at maturity are quite well established; and Addison, 1998. 80 Estimates are available of fecundity and maturity growth is a little more problematic, being based on tagging studies. Recent studies with R28. Sheey and at size, growth rates and natural mortality, microwire tags and neurolipofuscin estimation have suggested that growth is more Bannister, 2002. sufficient to inform a stock assessment process. variable than that estimated from tagging. Predation on lobsters above the minimum R17. Bannister, 100 There is comprehensive and reliable information landing size (MLS) is considered to be relatively low. There is sufficient information to Addison and on the fecundity/size at maturity/recruitment, allow the use of length-based assessment models to evaluate the impact of technical Lovewell, 1994. growth rates and factors causing natural mortality, measures and effort control on yield-per-recruit and egg-production-per-recruit. which can be incorporated into assessment models.

1.1.1.5 Is information collected on the abundance/density of the stock? 15.7 70 60 Either fishery dependent or fishery independent Fishery dependent estimates of population abundance are available. There are certain R14. Addison, 1997. indices are available on the abundance of the concerns about the impact of behavioural intra- and inter-specific interactions on the R16. Addison and stock biomass. catchability of lobsters. Some trend analysis of the landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE) data Bannister, 1998. 80 Fishery dependent and/or fishery independent is carried out. NESFC, pers. comm. indices are available on the abundance of the and their reports stock. Uncertainties reduced so as to allow trends Data are held but analysis of CPUE (LPUE) is incomplete. Further analysis is required to to be determined from indices. discriminate trends in stock. 100 Fishery dependent and fishery independent indices are available on the abundance and There are no fishery independent estimates. density of the stock. Indices are consistent and there is clear evidence that they are proportional to the stock size.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 3 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.6 Is the size structure and sex ratio of the landings and discards measured? 15.7 80 60 Data on the size structure and sex ratio of catches The landed catch is well sampled by both NESFC, DEFRA (MFA) and CEFAS. There is Pers. com. NESFC are known well enough to support a rudimentary also less intensive sampling of the catch, and hence discards, at sea. Discarding below the and CEFAS evaluation of the fishery. MLS is well enforced and discard mortality rates are considered to be very low. There are 80 Data on the size structure and sex ratio of catches sufficient length composition data to allow the use of length-based assessment modelling. in the main fishery are of adequate accuracy and measured for enough years to support a high degree of confidence in the evaluation of the fishery. 100 There is comprehensive and reliable data on the size Structure and sex ratio of all significant catches (including any recreational catches) to support a very high degree of confidence in the evaluation of the fishery.

1.1.1.7 Is information available on environmental influences on the stock dynamics? 11.7 80 60 There are some studies on the effects of biological The impacts of seasonal changes in environmental factors are well known. R20. Sheey and and physical influences on the stock (including Bannister, 2002. natural mortality). Research is encouraged and Habitat preferences of large juveniles and adults are known ongoing. 80 There is some knowledge of biological and Recent studies have suggested that larval abundance and settlement are climatically physical factors affecting distribution, survival modulated (water temperature and onshore winds). and year class strength (including natural With crustacean populations, size, rather than age class is determined mortality). 100 There is comprehensive knowledge of biological While the habitat requirements of large juvenile and adult lobsters are well established, and physical factors affecting distribution, little is known about habitat preferences of newly settled and small juveniles. survival and year class strength (including natural mortality). Key information is sufficiently robust for use in the stock assessment process.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 4 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2 There should be sufficient information on the fishery to allow its effects on the target stock to be evaluated. 16.7 Weighting Commentary Knowledge of mortality considered fundamental, as is the level of effort. 1.1.2.1 Is fishery related mortality recorded/ estimated (including landings, discards and incidental mortality)? 29.5 85 60 Information is available to allow Landings are well recorded from the majority of commercial vessels. Hobby and part-time fishers are R20. Bannister and adequate estimates to be made of restricted by a byelaw to a daily ‘bag limit’ of two lobsters, which is enforced by Fishery Officers. An Addison, 1998. landings. Estimates of discards and estimate of the landings from non-permit holders, netters and trawlers indicate that they land an incidental mortality are available. insignificant proportion of the landings. Tagging studies and microwire tagged releases of hatchery 80 Landings are accurately recorded. reared lobster indicate relatively low natural mortality rates. Most lobsters discarded by fishers are Discards and incidental mortality under-sized (<87mm CL). They are encouraged to handle discards carefully and return them to the are adequately estimated. sea, close to where caught, as soon as possible after capture. Discard mortality is considered to be 100 Landings, discards and incidental very low. There may be some incidence of limb loss during handling of the baited traps, but again this mortality are accurately recorded. is low.

1.1.2.2 Is fishing effort recorded / estimated? 29.5 80 60 Data are available which can be NESFC operate a permit scheme with monthly returns of fishing effort. In additional DEFRA (MFA) NESFC, pers. comm. used to estimate likely fishing effort collect landings and less extensive fishing effort data. CEFAS has a long record of logbook data and their reports. trends. collected on a voluntary basis. There are some problems with collecting and understanding the 80 Accurate estimates of fishing effort effective fishing effort. The fishing methods have changed to the use of parlour pots and many fishers can be made. now have more gear in the water than they can haul in a single trip. 100 Comprehensive records are kept of fishing effort from both full and Spatial resolution by splitting district into 4 areas – adequate for fishery in this area. part-time fishers, recorded at sub- annual intervals at an appropriate degree of spatial resolution.

1.1.2.3 Are fishing methods and gear types known throughout the fishery? 16.5 95 60 Main fishing methods and gear types The types of gears used are well known. The permit scheme returns provide seasonal data on fishing NESFC, pers. comm. are known for the fishery. activity. Spatial location of the gear is specified in terms of four areas along the coastline (one outside 80 Main fishing methods are known and the assessment area, and one overlapping). This is backed up with local information collected by information is available on the Fishery Officers and by a GIS database of fishing activity collected by the NESFC patrol boat. geographical areas and seasons of NESFC and CEFAS staffs make at sea observations on commercial potting vessels. use. 100 All fishing methods employed in the There are incidental catches by trawlers and nets, but these are insignificant. fishery are known and spatial- temporal patterns are well recorded. In-situ observations are made of fishing practices.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 5 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.4 Is selectivity known for the fishery? 10.4 95 60 Some information is available on selectivity. The trap construction, in terms of bar spacings and net mesh, only allows the escape of Pers. com. NESFC 80 Selectivity of gear types is well known. very small lobsters that have a low catchability. Selection takes place by sorting on deck and CEFAS. 100 Full selectivity has been accurately estimated for using a MLS gauge as necessary. Selection is virtually knife-edged at the MLS. The all gear, locations and times of fishing. Fishery Officers actively enforce the MLS.

A score of 100 is not justified because of potential size and sex selective behavioural interactions between individuals when the gear is fishing.

1.1.2.5 Are there other fisheries in the area, that exploit the target species and are not subject to 14.1 90 certification, identified and monitored? 60 There is some information relating to other There are incidental catches of lobsters by trawlers and nets, but these are quantified and fisheries in the area that are not subject to considered to be insignificant. There is a pot fishery outside the 6-mile limit, which NESFC, pers. comm. certification, although these are not fully defines the outer boundary of the assessment area. This fishery in targeted at brown crab identified. Where necessary these fisheries are (Cancer pagurus), with a bycatch of lobsters and velvet crabs (Necora puber). Though accounted for in the stock assessments. outside the remit of the NESFC, and hence their permit scheme, some boats fish both 80 The main fisheries not subject to certification are inshore and offshore and provide permit returns which include offshore lobster landings. identified. Where significant mortalities of the Fishery Officers use local knowledge to allocate inshore and offshore lobster landings target species from those fisheries occur they are appropriately. included in the stock assessments. 100 All fisheries (and other sources of human-induced >10m boats (including most of offshore fishery) record good landing information, but less mortality) in the area that are not subject to comprehensive effort data. certification are identified and monitored and included in assessments.

1.1.3 Appropriate reference points have been developed for the stock. 16.7 1.1.3.1 Are there appropriate limit and precautionary reference points? 100 60 60 Reference points have been chosen that are The fishery is monitored by following trends in CPUE, LPUE, and size and sex considered appropriate to achieve long term composition. sustainability. As with most European crustacean fisheries there are no explicit reference points, as 80 Measurable reference points are justified based on defined, for example, by ICES for most assessed finfish stocks. The generic length-based stock biology or exploitation history. assessments provide guidance on the impact of technical measures and effort control on 100 Limit and precautionary reference points are yield-per-recruit and egg-production-per-recruit. E.g. used to determine landing sizes. justified based on stock biology or exploitation history, and address uncertainty, variability and NESFC in process of developing indices based on LPUE. data limitations with statistical simulations. It has not been possible to estimate safe biological limits or reference points.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 6 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4 There is a well-defined and effective harvest strategy to manage the target stock. 16.7 Weighting Commentary The three indicators at this level were considered to be of equal significance. 1.1.4.1 Is there a mechanism in place to contain harvest as required for management of the stock? 33.3 60 60 Mechanisms exist to monitor and, if necessary, The stock is monitored by following trends in CPUE, LPUE, and size and sex reduce harvest. These mechanisms have not been composition. The stock is mainly managed through technical measures – the MLS. MLS tested, but a system is in place to evaluate and provides an indirect output control in terms of the size composition that may be exploited. strengthen as necessary. The MLS can be increased by SFC’s above the EU or national limit in response to local 80 Mechanisms are in place to reduce harvest as and conditions, but only apply to the local fishery. when required to maintain, or allow the target stock to return to, productive levels. While the UK shellfish fleet has recently been capped, there are no direct input or output 100 Mechanisms are in place to reduce harvest as and controls. NESFC are considering how they might limit pot numbers in the fishery. when required to maintain (or allow the target Despite the UK shellfish licensing scheme, there is no effective limit on fishing effort. stock to) return to productive levels. Measures to Effort from the offshore areas is free to move into the assessment area. This is a major demonstrate effectiveness are in place. weakness in the current management. Effort control probably necessary eventually to achieve effective control to prevent continuing rises in effort in response e.g. to increases in MLS.

1.1.4.2 Are clear, tested and agreed decision rules set out to effectively manage the stock? 33.3 60 60 It can be demonstrated that the decision making LPUE is being recorded and reference points based on LPUE are under development in NESFC, pers. comm. process has been recorded, and that it is logical the fishery. and appropriate. Rules may not have been tested. 80 Clear decision making rules exist, are fully There is a process embedded within the operation of the SFC to monitor the fishery and documented and agreed, but have not been fully implement management measures (byelaws) as appropriate. tested. Decision rules are reconciled with reference points and data and assessment However, as there are no explicit management objectives, there are no explicit decision limitations. rules. The stock is managed on an ad hoc basis, with managers responding to issues as 100 Clear, documented, agreed and tested decision and when they arise. rules are in place and have been fully reconciled with reference points and data and assessment limitations.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 7 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4.3 Are appropriate management tools specified to implement decisions in terms of input 33.3 60 and/or output controls? 60 Management tools exist to implement decisions The main management tool is the MLS. There is only a very limited input (fishing effort) on input and/or output controls although these are control, and no output (TACs or quotas) controls. Fishing activity and landings are not developed for the specific fishery, or market driven. There is a robust market demand for good quality (i.e. not soft recently management tools are not fully developed, but are moulted lobsters) and fishers land whatever they can catch, subject to the MLS restriction. specifically related to the fishery. Some evidence Elsewhere in finfish stocks management tools are well advanced, but have not been used exists to show that tools can be effective. in crustacean fisheries, with the exception of that for Nephrops norvegicus (Norway 80 Management tools have been specified to lobster, Dublin Bay prawn, scampi). implement decisions on input and/or output controls. These are generic although some The consideration of effective fishing effort control, e.g. pot limits, is essential. attempt has been made to relate them to the specific fishery OR tools are lacking in some details but are specifically related to the fishery. Evidence exists to show clearly that tools are effective. 100 Responsive, relevant and timely management tools, appropriate to the species and fishery, have been specified to implement management decisions on input and/or output controls. Evidence exists to show clearly that tools fully achieve their objectives.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 8 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5 There is a robust assessment of stocks. 16.7 Weighing Commentary The first four indicators at this level were considered of equal weight. 1.1.5.1 Are assessment methods used to provide advice on stock status? 22.2 70 60 An empirical approach to assessing stock status is Trend analyses of landings, effort and population structure (size and sex ratio) are used to R14. Addison, 1997 used. This is generic but does take account of assess stock status. some specific characteristics of the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. There are general concerns about the use of trap derived data, in terms of catchability, 80 Assessment models are used. Major criteria are environmental influences and behavioural interactions. related to the species and/or the fishery, but there are some areas of the assessment that are generic. Length-based assessment models, e.g. length cohort analysis, are used to assess yield-per- 100 Assessment models are used and capture all major recruit and egg-production-per-recruit in relation to changes in the MLS and levels of features appropriate to the biology of the species, fishing effort. the nature of the fishery, and the management. The models are statistically robust and Yorkshire fishery is assessed on an ad-hoc basis as part of a larger area; outputs of incorporate all relevant information and data. modelling are used on an advisory basis to fishery managers for the development of wider UK legislation.

1.1.5.2 Does the assessment take into account major uncertainties in data and have assumptions 22.2 70 been evaluated? 60 Major uncertainties are identified. Some attempt There are uncertainties with respect to catchability (could be biased due to selectivity), R14. Addison, 1997 has been made to account for these in the growth (moult frequency), natural mortality (estimated), and recruitment. All these assessment. factors have been considered during assessments, some have been evaluated. 80 The assessment takes into account major uncertainties in the data and functional relationships. The most important assumptions have been evaluated. 100 The assessment takes into account all significant uncertainties in the data, functional relationships and evaluates the assumptions. There is a high degree of confidence in the model(s).

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 9 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.3 Are uncertainties and assumptions reflected in management advice? 22.2 70 60 Major uncertainties are recognised and are The scientific advice given to managers is provided with caveats regarding biological and R16. Addison and reported in management advice. fishery related uncertainties and assumptions. These are not explicitly reflected in the Bannister, 1998. 80 Major uncertainties and assumptions are management advice, but are taken account of during the decision making process and R13. Addison, 1995. addressed in management advice through the consultation with the fishing industry. R19. Bannister and decision rules. Addison, 1995a. 100 All significant uncertainties and assumptions are No explicit decision rules. taken into account and reflected in the management advice.

1.1.5.4 Does the assessment evaluate current stock status relative to reference points? 22.2 65 60 An adequate attempt is made to empirically R 13. Addison, 1997. estimate the stock status relative to reference As stated in 1.1.3.1, there are no explicit reference points. NESFC are beginning to R15. Addison, points. Forecasts of future trends are not made. develop LPUE indices. Bannister and 80 The assessment makes an approximated Lovewell, 1995. evaluation of the stock status relative to the There are attempts to estimate stock status relative to time trends in CPUE, LPUE and reference points. size and sex composition. A pre-recruit index has been developed, but only one to two 100 The assessment makes a reliable probabilistic years prior to recruitment to the fishery and with a low level of sampling. This index has evaluation of the stock status relative to the not yet been used for management purposes. reference points and projects these into the medium and longer term.

1.1.5.5 Does the assessment include the consequences of current harvest strategies? 11.1 70 60 The assessment makes an unrefined The length-based modelling looks at the consequences of changes in size at first capture approximation of the consequences of current (MLS) and fishing effort, relative to yield-per-recruit and egg-production-per-recruit. harvest strategies. 80 The assessment makes a robust approximation of the consequences of current harvest strategies. 100 The assessment includes the consequences of current harvest strategies and forecasts future consequences of these.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 10 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.6 The stock(s) is/are at appropriate reference level(s). 16.7 1.1.6.1 Is the stock(s) at or above reference levels? 100 60 [YES - Criteria 1 is complete. NO - Answer Criteria 2] 60 The stock is likely to be above a limit reference As there are no reference levels set it is not possible to answer this question. However, point. If it is below or there is a declining trend there is the possibility to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the fishery to evaluate then an appropriate recovery/rebuilding plan is in the current stock status relative to other relevant measures. The currently available place (Go to 1.2). analysis of CPUE, LPUE and size composition data suggests a relatively stable fishery 80 The stock is likely to be above a precautionary (over 4-5 year time scale), though there is an indication of a recent increase in potting reference point. effort. The series of MLS increases in recent years will have reduced the risks of growth 100 The stock is significantly and consistently above overfishing and recruitment failure, but to some extent these advantages will have been appropriate reference points. negated by fishing effort increases. The management is precautionary, though with quite long time lags for implementation of management actions, but does not currently apply the Precautionary Principle.

[At this time the answer here is equivocal – the benefit of the doubt has been applied, but only at the 60 scoring level.]

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 11 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.2 (MSC Criterion 2) Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified 33.3 n/a level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 1.2.1 If the stock is below the limit or precautionary reference points, are measures to rebuild 100 n/a the stock specified? 60 Appropriate rebuilding measures through See 1.1.6.1. reduction in exploitation exist and are being implemented. Rebuilding measures other than reduction in exploitation are being considered. Measures have not been tested. 80 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery within reasonable time frames. Measures have been tested and can be shown to be rebuilding the stock. 100 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery as quickly as is possible. Additional measures are being implemented to prevent problems in the future. Additional measures are already being implemented to prevent problems in the future.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 12 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs 33.3 77 reproductive capacity. 1.3.1 Fishing activity maintains the age, genetic structure or sex composition of the stock to a degree that does not impair reproductive 100 77 capacity. Weighting Commentary The three indicators at this level were considered to be of equal significance. 1.3.1.1 Is there adequate information on fecundity / recruitment and the dynamics of sub- 33.3 80 populations / sex structure? 60 There is information available on the fecundity, The size and sex composition of the catch and landings is monitored. Fecundity has been R15. Addison, growth and natural mortality. estimated. There is the possibility of a recruitment index. Natural mortality is considered Bannister and 80 Estimates are available of fecundity at size, likely to be relatively constant, though there are no direct estimates, the value of M = 0.1 Lovewell, 1995. growth rates and natural mortality. is commonly used in stock assessments. 100 There is comprehensive and reliable information on the fecundity/recruitment, growth rates and factors causing natural mortality.

1.3.1.2 Is the size/sex/genetic structure of the stock monitored to detect significant impairment of 33.3 80 reproductive capacity? 60 Population structure is based on some sampling The population structure of the exploited stock is well sampled and monitored. Landings and verification appropriate to this species. are well sampled, but catches are sampled at low levels. Not aware of any genetic studies. 80 Population structure is based on adequate sampling and verification appropriate to this species. 100 Population structure is well estimated with only insignificant errors. Genetic studies, if appropriate, have been conducted.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 13 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3.1.3 Does information from stock assessment indicate any changes in structure that would 33.3 70 significantly alter reproductive capacity? 60 Any fishery-induced trends in recruitment or The exploitation rate, judged from the length composition data, appears to be high in the R25. McCandless and spawning stock levels have not been shown to be inshore fishery. The recent increases in MLS were implemented to protect the spawning Stockdale, 2004. due to changes in stock structure. stock biomass. The source of recruitment to the fishery is unsure. 80 There are no fishery-related changes in stock Risks to reproductive capacity are possible, indicated by size distribution – but no structure that are likely to affect recruitment. assessment of these risks has been carried out. 100 There is a high degree of confidence that there are no downward fishery-induced trends in It is possible that the bulk of larval recruitment is dependent upon offshore refugia of reproductive capacity on local stocks or large berried females that are now being increasingly exploited by larger vessels. genetically identified stocks due to changes in the Catch rates of sub-legal recruits seem to be maintained, suggesting that there is currently size/sex/genetic structure. no impairment to reproductive capacity. The ‘V’ notching programme will have reduced the risk of recruitment impairment, though on a relatively small scale.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 14 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including 33.3 82 habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends 2.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 33.3 81 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2.1.1 There is adequate determination of ecosystem factors relevant to the geographical scale and life history strategy of the target species. 20 Weighting Commentary The potential for bycatch from this fishery was considered of higher relevance than the other factors at this level. 2.1.1.1 Are the nature and distribution of habitats relevant to the fishing operations known? 20 95 60 Some information exists but may not be The fisheries within this assessment all operate within 6 nm of the coast. Vessels are not R1 & R2 BGS, 1991a comprehensive or up to date. The distribution of subject to VMS control but can be mapped by coastal radar and are subject to inspection and b; R3 George et fishing operations is mapped. ‘at sea’ by NESFC patrols. Logbook and permit data provides the fishing location within al, 1988; R4 Jones, 80 Nature and distribution of all main habitats are four major areas within the NESFC area. NESFC record this on GIS. 1950; known in moderate detail. Information is recent. The distribution of fishing operations is The sub-tidal habitats are well known as they are shallow (generally <20 m) and the monitored. bottom substrate mapped by the British Geological Survey in 1991. The area around 100 The nature and the distribution of all habitats Flamborough Head is particularly well known, including major spatial and temporal relevant to the fishing operations are known in fishing patterns (potting effort in km squares), as it has been designated a candidate SAC detail. Information is recent. (surveys 2000 - 2004). There is also currently an evaluation of the habitats, and fishing impacts, within and outside of trawl exclusion zones within the NESFC district.

2.1.1.2 Is information available on non-target species affected by the fishery? 40 90 60 The main non-target species have been identified. The level of incidental catch is apparently very low, being confined to edible crab (1-2 I1, I4, I7 interviews 80 Information is available on the main non-target boxes per fleet) over the new shelling period – otherwise baited pots seem to be selective species affected by the fishery including their for lobster rather than crab. distribution and/or ecology. 100 Information is available on all non-target species Velvet crabs (Portunus (Necora) puber) may be taken as a by-catch, but only during the affected by the fishery including the distribution early months of the year when lobster catches are very low (e.g. <10 t per month for the and ecology. entire fishery) and the velvet crabs are the target species. Use of gear (by area and bait type and freshness) can change selectivity between lobster, crab and velvet crabs. Whelks are taken in discrete whelk pots and so comprise a limited by-catch.

There is occasionally an unquantified by-catch of finfish such as pout (Trisopterus luscus) and ling (Molva spp.) but this is rare and fish are always returned to the sea alive. Discussions with the Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA) who have observed pot use in the area also confirm that bycatch is principally limited to crab and small finfish (Jeremy Swarbrick, pers. comm.).

The distribution and ecology of the main non-target species, edible crab and velvet crabs, is reasonably well known.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 15 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.3 Is information available on the position and importance of the target species within the 20 80 food web? 60 Key food/prey items are known. The key food and prey items are known for this species. The feeding patterns are 80 Information is available on the position and reasonably well known for all life stages, although have not been quantified for this general importance of target species in the particular fishery. environment at key life stages. 100 Quantitative information is available on the position and importance of the target species within the food web at key life stages.

2.1.1.4 Is there information on the potential for the ecosystem to recover from fishery related 20 90 impacts? 60 Key elements of the functioning of the ecosystem, The coastal ecosystem of this area is reasonably well known. Its main components have R1 & R2 BGS, 1991a relevant to the fishery, are identified. been reasonably well studied, especially off key coastal features such as Flamborough and b; R3 George et 80 The main elements of the functioning of the Head. This is a dynamic area with high rates of sediment accretion and erosion which is al, 1988; R4 Jones, ecosystem, relevant to the fishery, have been reflected by the sub-tidal ecology. 1950; documented and are understood. 100 Detailed information is available on the potential NESFC currently commissioned study looking at impacts within and without trawl for affected elements of the ecosystem to recover exclusion areas. from fishery related impacts.

2.1.2 General risk factors are adequately determined. 20 86 Weighting Commentary Information of bycatch and discards were considered of greatest relevance 2.1.2.1 Is information available on the nature and extent of the by-catch (capture of non-target species)? 33.7 85 60 Qualitative information is available of the extent The level of incidental catch is apparently very low, being confined to edible crab (1-2 I1, I3, I4, I7 of retained by-catch, including a species list. boxes per fleet) over the new shelling period of crab. Records are kept of landed edible interviews, R9 80 Routinely collected quantitative information is and velvet crab – the key by-catch, other by-catch are not recorded. Non-retained catch Swarbrick et al, 1999 available on significant by-catch. are discarded with expected high survivorship. 100 Accurate records are kept on the nature and extent of all by-catch species including species, size and There is occasionally an unquantified by-catch of finfish such as pout (Trisopterus luscus) sex composition. and ling (Molva spp.) but this is rare (and so not considered significant) and fish are always returned to the sea alive. Discussions with the Seafish Industry Authority (SFIA) who have observed pot use in the area also confirm that bycatch is limited to crab and small finfish (Jeremy Swarbrick, pers. comm.).

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 16 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2.2 Is information available on the extent of non-retained catch (the proportion of the catch 30.9 80 not landed)? 60 Qualitative information is available of the extent The pots are hauled onboard across roller systems to a handling area where the pots are I1, I3, I4, I7 of non-retained catch, including a species list. emptied. Whilst edible and velvet crabs are retained all other species and all undersized interviews, R9 80 Information is available to allow estimates of individuals are discarded. Swarbrick et al, 1999 non-retained catch to be calculated and Annual monitoring by NESFC and studies by CEFAS provide data on non-retained interpreted. individuals of target species (lobster, edible and velvet crabs). 100 Accurate information is available on the extent of Although not specifically studied, most material returned to the sea, particularly all non-retained catch, and consequences of these crustaceans, is expected to be alive and undamaged (although crustaceans may lose limbs on the entire catch landed. in the roller system) and post-release mortality is considered to be very low. There is little independent quantification of bycatch and discards from this fishery but by all accounts this is low, and mostly composed of undersized lobsters and edible crabs. Any discards are usually returned alive and in good condition. This position has been echoed by English Nature (Robbie Fisher, pers. comm.).

2.1.2.3 Is there information on any unobserved fishing mortality? 12.6 85 60 Areas of potential unobserved fishing mortality Unobserved fishing mortality is limited to the post-discard mortality. With decapod I1, I3, I4, I7 are identified but no further information is crustaceans this is usually related to the duration of aerial exposure - in this fishery this interviews, R9 available. tends to be very brief as pots are sorted one by one with the undersize or non-target Swarbrick et al, 1999 80 Information from existing work has allowed species being discarded immediately. On the basis of information from other decapod estimates of unobserved fishing mortality to be fisheries, and the nature of this fishery, unobserved mortality would be expected to be made. low. 100 Research has been carried out on unobserved Trawlers make incidental catches of lobsters, where voluntary reports over 1999-2003 fishing mortality allowing accurate estimates to gave landings averaging between 6 kg/vessel/year (1999) to 52 kg/vessel/year (2003) and be made (or it is known that significant totaling a maximum of 1.2 tonnes in 2000, again a relatively small amount compared to unobserved mortality does not occur). the main pot fishery. Netting effort with single sheet and trammel nets targeted at cod, bass or sole land a small incidental bycatch of lobsters.

2.1.2.4 Are the effects of supply and use of bait known? 14.3 100 60 Types of bait, extent of use and sources of supply Oily fish such as mackerel are used as bait, with around five mackerel used per pot. I7 interviews are known. Previously these have been sourced from the bycatch of other local fisheries but since 80 There is adequate knowledge of the use of bait their decline imported bait from the wider commercial North Sea or Scottish pelagic including sources and amounts and there is fisheries are increasingly used. These mackerel stocks are themselves subject to ICES- sufficient information to indicate that collection enabled management and stocks are considered to be exploited at sustainable levels. of bait does not cause significant conservation problems. 100 All significant impacts of the supply and use of bait are known. NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 17 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2.5 Are the potential and significance of introduced / relocated species known? 8.6 95 60 There is recognition of potential sources of Gear is sourced locally, bait is from adjacent waters and is frozen, boats remain within the I7 interviews introduced / relocated species. region. Therefore no sources of potential introduction/relocation of species are present. 80 Potential routes and significance of introduced/relocated species directly related to the Potential routes are therefore known, but no formal evaluation of these has been carried fishery are known out or considered necessary. 100 Potential routes and significance of introduced/relocated species directly related to the fishery are known and monitored. Records are kept.

2.1.3 There is adequate knowledge of the effects of gear-use on the receiving ecosystem and extent and type of gear losses. 20 75 Weighting Commentary Habitat impacts of gear are considered minimal whilst ghost fishing is substantially more likely 2.1.3.1 Is there adequate knowledge of the physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear? 25 90 60 Main impacts of gear use on the habitat are Physical impacts are short-lived and consist of the benthos being subjected to the weight R10 Eno et al, 1996, identified including extent and location of use. of the pot. This could be an issue if the same location is consistently impacted. However, R11 McDonald et al 80 All impacts of gear use on the habitat are pot fleet location will vary according to season and tide (Steve Cowan, pers. comm.) and 1997. identified including extent and location of use and thus it is highly unlikely that one particular area will continue to be impacted. Studies estimates of habitat recovery times. have shown that pot impacts rarely result in the mortality of benthic flora and fauna. 100 The physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear have been studied and quantified, including details of any irreversible changes.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 18 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.3.2 Is any gear lost during fishing operations and is there any information on extent and 75 70 significance of ghost fishing? 60 Some recording of gear losses takes place. Gear loss from this fishery was investigated in 1999 and quantified losses in relation to R9 Swarbrick and Programmes are being developed to estimate any effort levels, identified the main reasons for losing shellfish traps and looked at Arkley, 1999; R33 effects of ghost fishing. fishermen’s perceptions of the phenomenon. Gear loss is considered to be low, with Bullimore et al, 1996 80 There is knowledge of the type, quantity and attempts always made to recover lost fleets, which are usually lost through gear conflicts location of gear lost during fishing operations. with mobile gears and can usually be located through GPS fixes and grappling exercises. Records of ghost fishing exist and estimates are Studies of ghost fishing have been carried out in the area. Swarbrick and Arkley survey made of the extent and significance of the impacts showed that most fishermen do not believe that lost traps pose a threat to stocks. Many of to target and non-target species. those interviewed had recovered traps lost for varying periods of time and they seldom 100 There is detailed knowledge of the type, quantity contained any catch. Most fishermen consider that pot catches reach an equilibrium after and location of gear types lost during fishing around 2-3 days (e.g. entrapment rates equal escape). In most cases lost gear is damaged operations. The impact of gear loss on target and and has no residual fishing capability. Fishers also report that netting may also be holed non-target species has been assessed. Records are by crabs and lobster, over time, in lost gear allowing for escape. However other work kept of the extent of ghost fishing on target and elsewhere in the UK also suggests that lost traps can continue to fish - one study showed non-target species. Estimates of impacts are that lost or abandoned shellfish pots are still intact and capable of fishing effectively after made. 270 days (Bullimore et al 1996).

2.1.4 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts of the fishery 20 73 on the ecosystem. Weighting Commentary The two factors at this level were considered of equal importance 2.1.4.1 Have levels of acceptable impact been determined and regularly reviewed? 50 70 60 There is sufficient information to determine Acceptable levels of impact on lobster are considered in Principle 1. Unobserved I1, I2, I7 interviews acceptable impacts for main target and non-target mortality of discarded lobsters is considered to be low and so no additional impacts would species and habitats. be expected on the target species. 80 Levels of acceptable impacts (e.g. reference points) for key aspects of the ecosystem within The significant by-catch species are edible crab and velvet crab. LPUE is monitored for main fishing areas have been estimated & are both species and there are MLS constraints on edible and velvet crabs. As for lobster regularly reviewed. (Principle 1), there are no pre-determined management action trigger points for LPUE or 100 Levels of acceptable impacts (e.g. reference other indices for these species. Unobserved mortality of discarded crabs is also considered points) for key aspects of the ecosystem within to be low. main fishing areas have been estimated & are regularly reviewed. Other impacts e.g. benthic damage through the physical impact of pot deployment have also been considered insignificant as the location of gear deployment is so variable.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 19 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4.2 Are management objectives set in terms of ecosystem impact identification and avoidance 50 75 / reduction? 60 Limited management objectives exist that identify Management measures to protect lobster are through MLS. Lobster LPUE is monitored I1, I2, I7 interviews ecosystem impacts and lead to some degree of annually and appears constant and so impact avoidance for this species may be considered avoidance / reduction. adequate, based on current, limited, information. 80 Management objectives are set to detect and reduce ecosystem impacts. These are designed to Management measures to protect edible and velvet crab are also through MLS. Crab adequately protect key aspects of the ecosystem LPUE is monitored annually and from 1999 to 2002 Crab LPUE has been constant or within main fishing areas. increasing, and so impact avoidance for this species may also be considered adequate, 100 Tested management objectives are set to detect based on current, limited, information. and reduce ecosystem impacts These are designed to adequately protect ecosystems, habitats and For each of these crustacean species, there is discard of live unwanted bycatch from the populations of target and non-target species. pots immediately after they are hauled.

Habitat and ecosystem related impacts are not considered significant and requiring of management actions.

2.1.5 Assessments of impacts associated with the fishery including the significance and risk of each impact, show no unacceptable impacts 20 83 on the ecosystem structure and/or function, on habitats or on the populations of associated species. Weighting Commentary All factors were considered of equal importance except for habitat impacts (2.1.5.4) which were considered likely to be insignificant with this gear type. 2.1.5.1 Have all the significant effects of the fishery on the ecosystem been identified? 22.2 80 60 Main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem are Main impacts are on target and significant by-catch species. As discussed above, 2.1.4.2, I1, I2, I7 interviews. known from existing information. impacts are being evaluated on the basis of these. R5 Senior 1999a & 80 There is a comprehensive evaluation of the effects 1999b, R12 Evans, of the fishery on the ecosystem based on existing Habitat and wider ecosystem related impacts are not considered significant. The impacts 2000 information. of potting have only been investigated in the area around the Flamborough Head cSAC 100 The effects of the fishery on the ecosystem have and it was concluded that ecological impacts were low and reversible unless impacts been identified by appropriate comparative and/or where high concentrated over time in one area. Fishing patterns suggest that this latter experimental studies. situation is unlikely. As a result, management mechanisms to reduce the ecosystem impact of potting were not considered necessary for the SAC management plan.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 20 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.2 Does the removal of target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and 22.2 80 function? 60 The removal of target stocks could lead to The dietary requirements of lobster are reasonably well known and reasonable R5 Senior 1999a & impacts upon ecological systems (applying the presumptions can be made on their predatory patterns. Lobsters are opportunistic 1999b, R12 Evans, precautionary approach where necessary). A predators/scavengers with no obligate predators. They are thought to be territorial and so 2000, program is in development to identify these and, density dependent. Populations may therefore be regulated by available territories/space. if appropriate, reduce these to acceptable, defined Therefore fishing pressure may exert some direct impact upon ecological system structure limits. or functioning (including specific prey or predator species) - although this is difficult to 80 Some information is available on consequences of quantify, it is not likely to be outside of acceptability. current levels of removal of target species. These suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on Routine environmental monitoring to date, especially around the Flamborough cSAC, ecological systems within major fishing areas. suggests that the current level of removal is not having a significant impact on ecological 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of systems within the inshore (i.e. <6 nm limit) environment. NESFC also have studies of removal of target stocks has been quantified and benthic communities in areas of different fishing pressure, but results are not yet available documented to be within acceptable, pre- determined, limits.

2.1.5.3 Does the removal of non-target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure 22.2 80 and function? 60 The removal of non-target stocks could lead to The information available on the main bycatch species, crab, is well known as it is I1, I2, I7 interviews impacts upon ecological systems (applying the another major local fishery. precautionary approach where necessary). A program is in development to identify these and, The dietary requirements of edible and velvet crab are reasonably well known and if appropriate, reduce these to acceptable, defined reasonable presumptions can be made on their predatory patterns. Crabs are opportunistic limits. predators/scavengers with no obligate predators, although they are more likely to be 80 Some information is available on consequences of predated by larger gadoids, elasmobranchs etc. current levels of removal of non-target species. These suggest no unacceptable impacts of the Fishing pressure is not known to exert a direct impact upon ecological system structure or fishery on ecological systems within major functioning (including specific prey or predator species), although no specific studies fishing areas. have been produced. 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of removal of non-target stocks has been quantified Routine environmental monitoring to date, especially around the Flamborough cSAC, and documented to be within acceptable, pre- suggests that the current level of removal of non-target species is not having a significant determined, limits. impact on ecological systems within the inshore (i.e. <6 nm limit) environment. NESFC also have studies of benthic communities in areas of different fishing pressure, but results are not yet available

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 21 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.4 Does the fishery have unacceptable impacts on habitat structure? 11.1 90 60 There is no evidence from direct or comparative Habitat impacts have been shown to be minor and reversible except where effort is R10 Eno et al, 1996, studies that the fishery is having unacceptable repeatedly and continuingly concentrated on one location which is not the case in this R11 McDonald et al impacts, although the issue has not been directly fishery. 1997. studied. 80 No unacceptable impacts of the fishery on habitat structure within major fishing areas have been demonstrated. 100 Effects on habitat structure are documented and are within acceptable tested/justified limits.

2.1.5.5. Is associated biological diversity and productivity affected to unacceptable levels? 22.2 90 60 There is no evidence from direct or comparative The impact of shellfish pot fisheries on benthic biodiversity have been studied and found R10 Eno et al, 1996, studies that the fishery is having unacceptable to be short-term and fully reversible except where effort is concentrated one location R11 McDonald et al impacts, although the issue has not been directly which is not the case in this fishery. Impacts on productivity are likely to be localised and 1997. studied. transient. 80 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity and productivity have been considered and no unacceptable impacts have been found. 100 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity and productivity have been quantified and are within acceptable tested/justified limits

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 22 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2 (MSC Criterion 2) The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity (at the genetic, species or population levels) and avoids 33.3 96 or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 2.2.1 Fishing is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on recognised protected, endangered or threatened 50 97 species. Weighting Commentary All three factors were considered of equal importance at this level 2.2.1.1 Is there information on the presence and populations of protected species? 33.3 100 60 There is a program in place to identify protected, The nationally rare bryozoan Smittina affinis is found in Selwick’s Bay to the north of I4, R3. George et al threatened and endangered species directly related Flamborough Head. However no recognised protected, endangered or threatened species 1988, R5 Senior to the fishery. There is periodic monitoring of the are impacted by this fishery. This is recognised by the acknowledged operation of this 1999a & 1999b, R12 main population trends and status of protected, fishery within the Flamborough Head cSAC (following analysis by English Nature) and Evans, 2000 endangered and threatened species. the decision not to impose any management measures or restrictions on this particular 80 All protected, threatened and endangered species fishery. No critical habitats for recognised protected, endangered or threatened species directly related to the fishery have been identified. would be affected by fishing operations. The populations of all protected, threatened and endangered species directly related to the fishery are monitored on a regular basis. 100 There is knowledge of all populations of protected species directly or indirectly related to the fishery including an assessment of temporal variability. The type and distribution of critical habitats have been identified.

2.2.1.2 Are interactions of the fishery with such species adequately determined? 33.3 95 60 The main interactions directly related to the The fishery, especially within the Flamborough Head cSAC area, is well monitored and I4, R3. George et al fishery are known. any potential impacts on recognised, endangered or threatened species assessed. To date 1988, R5 Senior 80 Quantitative estimates are made of the effects of none have been identified. 1999a & 1999b, R12 interactions directly related to the fishery. Evans, 2000 100 Reliable quantitative estimates are made of the interactions of all populations directly related to the fishery, and qualitative information is available on indirect impacts.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 23 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.1.3 Do interactions pose an unacceptable risk to such species? 33.3 95 60 Known effects are within acceptable limits of It is understood that the direct and indirect effects of fishing on threatened and endangered I4 national and international legislative species are within acceptable limits. requirements. 80 Critical interactions are well estimated and do not threaten protected species. 100 It is known that the direct and indirect effects of fishing on threatened and endangered species are within acceptable limits.

2.2.2 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts of the fishery 50 95 on protected, endangered or threatened species. 2.2.2.1 Are management objectives set in terms of impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 100 95 60 Some management systems exist in No management strategies are necessary as it is considered that the direct and indirect effects of fishing I4 terms of impact identification and on threatened and endangered species are within acceptable limits. avoidance/reduction. 80 Management strategies are set to address impacts. These are designed to adequately protect key aspects of the ecosystem within main fishing areas. 100 Tested management strategies are set to address impacts These are designed to adequately protect ecosystems, habitats and populations of target and non- target species.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 24 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Where exploited populations (of non-target species) are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is 33.3 70 allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields. 2.3.1 There are management measures in place that allow for the rebuilding of affected populations. 100 70 Weighting Commentary Both factors were considered of equal importance at this level 2.3.1.1. Is there sufficient information to allow determination of necessary changes in fishery 50 70 management to allow recovery of depleted populations? 60 There is some information on functional The information available on the crab fishery is similar to that for lobsters. While I1 relationships, sufficient to allow alterations to be considerable amounts of data are collected for both the overall stock and the fishery being made to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted assessed for certification, they await a full and complete analysis. Modelling has explored species. functional relationships. 80 There is adequate information, combined with a precautionary approach wherever necessary, to allow alterations to be made to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species. 100 There is a clear understanding of functional relationships between the impacted population and the fishery. Intervention measures based on this understanding have been tested.

2.3.1.2 Do management measures allow for recovery of affected populations? 50 70 60 Rebuilding measures exist, including the The crab fishery is subject to a fisheries management regime analogous to that for I1 modification of fishing practices, and are fully lobsters. While the crab MLS is a tested and effective technical measure, to allow a implemented. Measures have not been tested. depleted population to rebuild there would be a need to implement more effective input 80 Appropriate rebuilding measures, including the and output controls. modification of fishing practises, are being implemented. Measures have been tested and can be shown to be rebuilding the affected populations. 100 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery as quickly as is possible. Additional measures are being implemented to prevent problems in the future, including a modification to fishing practises.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 25 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and 33.3 88 incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

3.A Management System Criteria 50 85 Weighting Commentary Within MSC Principle 3, 3A (management system criteria) and 3B (operational criteria) were considered of equal importance.

Under 3A, equal importance was provided to the 8 factors at this level. 3A.1 (MSC Principle 3 Intent A management system containing an institutional and operational framework exists with clear lines of responsibility. 12.5 85 and Criterion 3) Weighting Commentary The four indicators at this level were considered to be of equal significance. 3A.1.1 Are organisations with management responsibility clearly defined including areas of 25 100 responsibility and interactions? 60 Organisations with management responsibility are The respective roles of the EC, DEFRA and NESFC are clearly defined. There are known. Responsibilities and interactions require overlaps in the legislation but this is well identified and dealt with by good clarification, but are currently being determined. communication between representatives of the responsible organisations. 80 Organisations with management responsibility have been defined including key areas of responsibility and interaction 100 Organisations with management responsibility are clearly defined including all areas of responsibility and interaction.

3A.1.2 Is the system consistent with the political and cultural context, scale and intensity of the 25 90 fishery? 60 Inconsistencies arise in some key areas but a The multi-layered approach to management addresses most political and cultural issues. R29. Watson and programme is in place to address these. The NESFC has representation from both the catching and merchanting sides of the White, 2004. 80 The system is consistent with key elements of the fishing industry, conservation etc. Some fishers have expressed a desire for more NESFC, pers. comm. political and cultural context, scale and intensity stakeholder input and this is currently being assessed by the NESFC and allied local of the fishery. bodies. 100 The system is consistent with key elements of the political and cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 26 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.1.3 Is the management system subject to internal review? 25 80 60 There are mechanisms in place to allow for Within DEFRA internal review is continuous in response to outside pressure from the NESFC, pers. comm. internal review. fishing industry and politicians. The scientific commission from DEFRA to CEFAS is 80 The whole management system is subject to reviewed annually by the DEFRA Fisheries Science Unit. regular internal review. 100 The management system is subject to regular and The NESFC management is subject to annual review and reporting to the Committee, frequent internal review. which consists of representatives from the 11 coastal Local funding Authorities, together with 17 members appointed by DEFRA and one member appointed by the Environment Agency. There is also a Scientific and Byelaw Working Group that evaluates the research and management programme.

3A.1.4 Is the management system subject to external review? 25 70 60 There are mechanisms in place to allow for There is no direct external review. No ICES involvement re lobster. R31.

external review, but to date this has not taken http://www.defra.govH place. DEFRA has overall responsibility for the operation of SFCs, and holds an annual .uk/fish/sea/pdf/sfc- 80 The whole management system is subject to statutory meeting to discuss relevant issues. All SFC byelaws are subject to confirmation role.pdf regular external review. by the Secretary of State (DEFRA), after advertisement for objections from stakeholders. 100 The management system is subject to regular and DEFRA consult their scientific advisors (CEFAS) and various environmental bodies as frequent external review. appropriate to a particular byelaw.

The structure and effectiveness of SFC’s has also been recently reviewed within England and Wales.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 27 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 A.2 (MSC Criteria 1, 2, 4) The management system has a clear legal basis. 12.5 90 Weighting Commentary As an inshore fisheries, less weight was allocated to consistency with international conventions 3A.2.1 Is the fishery consistent with EU and other international legislation? 20 90 60 The management system operates under relevant The fishery has a clear legislative basis at the EC level. Certain stakeholders continually EU and international legislation. There is no evaluate and challenge (un-successfully) the legal basis of the EC regulations. evidence that the fishery is not consistent with these agreements. 80 The management system operates in full compliance with EU and international legislation. An evaluation of the system to provide documented compliance is planned. 100 The management system is demonstrably compliant with all relevant EU and international legislation. An evaluation has been carried out which clearly documents the performance.

3A.2.2 Is the fishery consistent with national legislation? 40 95 60 The management system operates under The fishery is wholly compliant with national legislation. This is actively enforced by NESFC, pers. comm. legislation. There is no evidence that the fishery is British Sea Fisheries Officers (MFA) and tested in the courts during prosecutions. While R31.

not consistent with these agreements. there is no documented evaluation, legal case law supports the interpretation and http://www.defra.govH 80 The management system operates in full implementation of the legislative management system. .uk/fish/sea/conserve/ compliance with national legislation. An pdf/conservruleseng3 evaluation of the system to provide documented Sea Fishery Committees are established by the DEFRA Minister under the Sea Fisheries .pdf

compliance is planned. Regulation Act 1966, but funded by a levy on their constituent local Councils. SFCs http://www.defra.govH 100 The management system is demonstrably regulate sea fisheries in their districts by means of byelaws that come into force when .uk/fish/sea/pdf/sfc- compliant with all relevant national legislation. confirmed by the Secretary of State (DEFRA), after advertisement for objections, in role.pdf An evaluation has been carried out which clearly accordance with the Sea Fisheries (Byelaws) Regulations 1985 (Statutory Instrument documents the performance. 1985 No; 1785).

There are formal legislation-based interactions between DEFRA, MFA, CEFAS and NESFC.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 28 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.2.3 Does the system observe the legal and customary rights of people dependent upon 40 85 fishing? 60 The customary and legal rights of the people The customary rights of the general public, including commercial fishers, to fish in the dependent upon fishing are known and no marine environment are not well established in law. However, considerable efforts are measures which compromise these have been made at the Government policy and legal levels to protect commercial fishers’ rights with recorded. a licensing system. Fishers are appointed to the NESFC to represent the commercial 80 The system keeps the legal and customary rights stakeholders. Until recently little account was taken of the interests of marine recreational of people dependent upon fishing but does not fishers. necessarily have a formal codified system. 100 The system observes all legal and customary rights of all people dependent upon fishing and any recreational fishers under a formal codified system.

3A.3 (MSC Criteria 2, 5, 7) The management system includes strategies to meet objectives including consultative procedures and dispute resolutions. 12.5 78

Weighting Commentary Equal weight was assigned to the six factors at this level 3A.3.1 Does the management system contain clear short and long-term objectives? 16.7 70 60 Short and long-term resource and environmental The management system lacks clearly and explicitly defined short and long-term R30.

objectives are implicit within the management objectives for the lobster fishery. This is not unusual within the context of the EC and http://www.mfa.gov.H system. UK approach to inshore fisheries management. Generalised fisheries and environmental uk/pdf/corpplan.pdf 80 The management system contains short and long- objectives are becoming increasingly more important. Government and NGO term resource and environmental objectives. environmental stakeholders are having more input to fisheries resource management and 100 The management system contains clear short and leading to clearer environmental objectives. long-term resource and environmental objectives that can be measured by well-defined performance indicators.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 29 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.2 Do operational procedures exist for meeting objectives? 16.7 80 60 Operational procedures exist which are applied to Implicit objectives within SFC met by: CEFAS and NESFC monitor landings, effort, R30.

the meeting of objectives. LPUE, CPUE, size composition, and sex ratio periodically (annually by NESFC) and www.mfa.gov.ukH 80 Transparent operational procedures are applied to hence stock status to meet implicit objectives. The main regulation is the MLS which R32.

the meeting of objectives. These procedures can aims to protect juvenile lobsters and reduce the risk of growth overfishing and recruitment www.neseafish.gov.uH be shown to support the objectives. failure. k/nesfc. 100 Operational procedures are transparent and clearly NESFC, pers. comm. applied. There is a feedback mechanism testing Operational procedures for the enforcement of regulations to meet implicit objectives are effective application. well established by DEFRA (MFA) and NESFC. MFA and NESFC have strategic objectives, corporate plans, performance targets and code of performance details on their websites.

3A.3.3 Are there procedures for measuring performance relative to the objectives? 16.7 70 60 Some operational procedures exist which can be CEFAS and NESFC monitor landings, effort, LPUE, CPUE, size composition, and sex R30.

used to estimate performance relative to the ratio periodically (annually by NESFC) – in relation to implicit management objectives. http://www.mfa.gov.H objectives. The lack of explicit and measurable management objectives makes the quantitative uk/enforcement/defau 80 There are procedures used for measuring assessment of objective performance rather difficult. This issue has recently begun to be lt.htm performance relative to the objectives. addressed by NESFC in discussions on the use of a LPUE threshold for further R32.

100 Tested procedures are used for regular management action. www.neseafish.gov.uH measurement of performance relative to the k/nesfc. objectives. Both MFA and NESFC have enforcement performance targets and code of performance NESFC, pers. comm. details on their websites.

3A.3.4 Do objectives and operational procedures follow the precautionary approach? 16.7 65 60 Some objectives and procedures implement a There is a precautionary approach, but only in an informal sense (i.e. an implicit approach precautionary approach. within management agencies). The monitoring programme aims to provide early warning 80 Key objectives and procedures explicitly signs of adverse stock trends, which would trigger additional management. implement a precautionary approach. 100 All objectives and procedures explicitly implement a precautionary approach.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 30 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.5 Does the system include a consultative process including affected parties? 16.7 95 60 The system includes a consultative process There are standard consultative procedures adopted by DEFRA to consult the majority of R32.

including main stakeholders within the fishery, stakeholders, either directly via press announcements, postal and website consultative http://www.neseafishH some stakeholders are excluded. documents, or via fishers’ organisations or associations. .gov.uk/nesfc/perfor 80 The system includes a consultative process mance.html including all key stakeholders. NESFC has similar consultative procedures and is subject to Statuary consultation over 100 The system includes a clearly defined consultative byelaws. See their Performance Target 5 “To continue the programme of regular NESFC, pers. comm. process including all affected stakeholders. There consultation meetings with representatives of all sectors of the fishing industry, including is evidence of the effectiveness of the process. recreational angling interests, and to ensure that substantive issues raised at the consultation meetings are drawn to the attention of the Committee”.

3A.3.6 Is there an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes within the system? 16.7 90 60 Informal mechanisms exist for resolution of The MFA has a complaints procedure. DEFRA is subject to dispute resolution via NESFC pers. comm. disputes within the system. individual complaint, harnessing the representation of a stakeholder’s Member of 80 There is an appropriate formal mechanism for the Parliament, or Judicial Review. resolution of disputes within the system. 100 There is an appropriate and tested mechanism for NESFC has a well-defined feedback policy that covers ‘normal’ and vexatious the resolution of disputes within the system. complaints. The procedure is well documented. NFFO (and other fishermen’s Where disputes have occurred there is well organisations) may also be involved in relevant dispute management and resolution. documented evidence of the effectiveness of the system in action. Disputes and actions are recorded at each of these levels. However, effectiveness of dispute resolution is not specifically demonstrated.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 31 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.4 (MSC Criterion 6) The management system operates in a manner appropriate to the objectives of the fishery. 12.5 97 Weighting Commentary The impact of subsidies was considered more fundamental than the influence of incentives for sustainable practises 3A.4.1 Does the system include subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing? 66.7 100 60 A small number of subsidies may still exist that No direct subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing have been identified. Grants R21. B. Bradshaw. contribute to unsustainable fishing. These are are available to help fishers adopt sustainable catching methods, maximise fish quality 2005. Fishing News, short-term and are in the process of being and make improvements to working conditions and safety equipment. 2 Dec 2005, p4. removed. 80 Some indirect subsidies may exist but the system includes no subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. 100 The system is not subsidised to any extent that contributes to unsustainable fishing or adverse ecological or environmental impacts.

3A.4.2 Does the system include economic/social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing? 33.3 90 60 A program is being developed to promote Socio-economic market forces encourage sustainable fishing, coupled with peer pressure sustainable fishing practices. to abide by the regulations. 80 The system has some economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing. FIFG and regional funding is being used to encourage sustainable fishing development in 100 The system has established economic and social the region. incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing. No subsidies are offered for purchase of vessels or vessels targeting fully exploited or depleted resources.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 32 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5 (MSC Criterion 8) A research plan exists in line with the management system to address information needs. 12.5 78 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered to be of equal importance 3A.5.1 Have key research areas requiring further information been identified? 33.3 80 60 Some major areas requiring further research have CEFAS are responsible to DEFRA for lobster research. There are a number of currently been identified. intractable research issues that apply to lobsters worldwide. CEFAS and other European 80 Many key areas requiring further research have Institutes continue with research appropriate to the resourcing levels provided, in the been identified. main, by governments. There is little research financed directly by fishery stakeholders. 100 A comprehensive review of information Seafish is financed by an industry levy on landings, and does at times undertake shellfish requirements has been undertaken and key areas related studies, mainly in relation to fishing gear and live storage facilities. for further research identified. The main research areas requiring attention that are relevant to this assessment are those defined in the Pre-Conditions, i.e. data analysis, stock assessment and biological studies of recruitment to help elucidate stock identity.

3A.5.2 Is research planned/undertaken to meet the specific requirements of fishery management? 33.3 65 60 Research is planned for highest priority NESFC has a Scientific and Byelaw Working Group that evaluates the research needs. NESFC, pers. comm. information needs but significant gaps remain. Their scientific resources are restricted and they look to CEFAS to carry out the major 80 Research is planned and undertaken to provide research required. necessary scientific support to the plan. There are demonstrable resources to allow implementation Research planned in relation to specific requirements of the NESFC fishery not apparent. of the programme. There is a need for a comprehensive analysis of all the landings, effort, CPUE, LPUE, 100 There is an ongoing, funded, comprehensive and size and sex composition data collected by NESFC, DEFRA (MFA) and CEFAS. Up-to- balanced research programme, linking research to date fishery specific assessments should be undertaken to evaluate future management the management plan. needs.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 33 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5.3 Is relevant research carried out by other organisations and is this taken into consideration? 33.3 90 60 The management system is aware of research CEFAS has links with other organisations, particularly University Departments working R25. McCandless and carried out by other organisations. These are not in relevant fields. CEFAS staff keep up-to-date with research elsewhere and participate in Stockdale, 2004. necessarily taken into consideration. ICES workshops and international meetings. 80 Appropriate research carried out by other organisations is taken into consideration, although NESFC have encouraged outside institutes to participate in relevant research. For there is not necessarily any proactive co- example, the University of Hull is currently looking at the efficacy of the trawl free zones ordination between organisations. management within the NESFC District. There is a pilot lobster tagging project being 100 Relevant research carried out by other carried out from funding provided by a project for an offshore pipeline. The NESFC ‘V’ organisations is taken into account for notching programme was funded by a number of external bodies. management considerations. This research is co- ordinated with existing research plans of the management system.

3A.6 (MSC Criteria 7, 9, 10) The management system includes measures to achieve objectives for the stock. 12.5 72 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered to be of equal importance 3A.6.1 Are the resource and effects of the fishery monitored? 33.3 80 60 A monitoring programme is in place which CEFAS and NESFC monitor landings, effort, LPUE, CPUE, size composition, and sex addresses some key aspects of resource and ratio periodically (annually by NESFC), with most sampling undertaken in the fishery effects and which can be extended. within 6 miles. 80 A monitoring programme is in place which However, sampling levels are adequate for landings, but not catch and discards, in addresses all key aspects of resource and effects relation to the size and extent of the stock/fishery, which prevents a higher score being at appropriate intervals and results are recorded. awarded. 100 The resource and effects of the fishery are closely monitored over appropriate geographical areas and time periods. Full records are kept of monitoring results and these are made available to relevant research and management bodies.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 34 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6.2 Are results evaluated against precautionary, target and limit reference points? 33.3 65 60 A limited level of evaluation is possible. 80 Results of monitoring are regularly interpreted in Monitoring results are evaluated against generic management principles, but not relation to precautionary, target and limit specifically against identified precautionary, target or limit reference points. reference points 100 Results of monitoring are quantitatively evaluated As with most European crustacean fisheries there are no explicit reference points, as against precautionary, target and limit reference defined, for example, by ICES for most assessed finfish stocks. The generic length-based points on a regular basis. assessments provide guidance on the impact of technical measures and effort control on yield-per-recruit and egg-production-per-recruit. E.g. used to determine landing sizes.

3A.6.3 Do procedures exist for reductions in harvest in light of monitoring results? 33.3 70 60 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest. Input/output controls have not been considered necessary, though questions are being Programmes to link these with monitoring results asked about the future sustainability of the lobster fishery and consideration being given are underway. to a pot limitation scheme. The MLS has been increased in recent years in response to 80 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest in the monitoring, research, and assessments. light of monitoring results and could provide for stock recovery to specified levels. 100 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest in light of monitoring results and provide for stock recovery to specified levels within specified time frames.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 35 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.7(MSC Criterion 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the affected ecosystem. 12.5 91 Weighting Commentary Management mechanisms to reduce environmental impacts were considered of priority. No take zones could be considered a subset of this and therefore was weighted lower 3A.7.1 Are measures in place to address (avoid or minimise) significant environmental impacts? 42.6 95 60 Significant environmental impacts are known and Environmental impacts from pot fishing for lobsters are considered to be insignificant measures are in place to monitor them and (see Principle 2). consider their application to reduce key impacts. 80 Most environmental impacts are known. It has been suggested that repeated and consistent location of a fishing area might have a Measures are being applied to minimise all impact on benthos. However, pot fleet location will vary according to season and tide significant ones and there is evidence that the (Steve Cowan, pers. comm.) and thus it is highly unlikely that one particular area will measures are working. continue to be impacted. Studies have shown that pot impacts rarely result in the 100 Measures are in place to avoid all significant mortality of benthic flora and fauna. environmental impacts and are subject to monitoring and periodic review.

3A.7.2 Do fishing operations identify appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse 32.5 90 impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas? 60 Fishing operations use measures that significantly Pot fishing inherently minimises adverse impacts on the habitats typical of lobster reduce major impacts on habitat, especially in grounds (see Principle 2 and 3A.7.1). critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are effective in avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations implement appropriate methods to avoid significant adverse impacts on all habitats.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 36 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.7.3 Are no take zones and/or closed areas/seasons appropriate and, if so, are these 24.8 85 established? 60 Suitability of no take zones and/or closed Large no take zones for direct management benefit for lobsters are not considered NESFC, pers. comm. areas/seasons have been reviewed against appropriate at this time. There are, however, three small trawl free zones within the objective biological criteria but, if appropriate, assessment area:- Staithes to Sandsend (Whitby), Filey Bay, and Whitter (near Hornsea) there are no plans to implement the results. to Spurn Point. The byelaw implementing these zones was established to reduce habitat 80 Suitability of no take zones and/or closed damage, limit exploitation of whitefish stocks, and protect crustacean stocks and conflicts areas/seasons have been reviewed and these have with fixed gear such as pots. been or are currently being implemented if and where appropriate. 100 No take zones and/or closed areas/seasons are a well established part of the management system. They are rigorously enforced and their effectiveness continually monitored.

3 A.8 (MSC Criterion 11) There are control measures in place to ensure the management system is effectively implemented. 12.5 90 Weighting Commentary All three factors were consider of equal importance at this level 3A.8.1 Are information, instruction and/or training provided to fishery operatives in the aims and 33.3 85 methods of the management system? 60 Mechanisms exist for the dissemination of Direct guidance via press releases, leaflets and notices, and together with direct contact information, instruction and training of fishery from Fishery Officers, is given. Fishers involvement in the consultative procedures (see operatives. These are not necessarily implemented 3.A.3.5) ensures that they are aware of impending changes in the regulations. in terms of the aims and methods of the management system. 80 Information, instruction and training are provided to fishery operatives in the aims and methods of the management system allowing effective management of the system. 100 Information, instruction and training are provided to fishery operatives in the aims and methods of the management system allowing effective management of the fishery and operatives demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of this information.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 37 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.8.2 Is surveillance and monitoring in place to ensure that requirements of the management 33.3 90 system are complied with? 60 An enforcement system has been implemented; There is an extensive enforcement system in place, implemented by MFA and NESFC. NESFC, pers. comm. however, its effectiveness and/or compliance have The lack of explicit management objectives results in control and compliance not been fully demonstrated relative to performance being assessed against operational targets. Compliance records are kept. management objectives. 80 An effective enforcement system has been implemented and there is an appropriate degree of control and compliance. 100 An effective enforcement system has been implemented and there is a high degree of control and compliance.

3A.8.3 Can corrective actions be applied in the event of non-compliance? 33.3 100 60 Mechanisms exist or are being developed which Corrective action against non-complying fishers ranges from a verbal warning to court NESFC, pers. comm. can be implemented or applied to deal with non- action and penalties, which include fines and custodial sentences. Records are kept of compliance. compliance action. 80 There are set measures that can be applied in the event of non-compliance although these may not be included in a formal or codified system. 100 Agreed and tested corrective actions can be applied in the event of non-compliance. These are explicit, well documented and publicised.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 38 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 B Operational Criteria 50 90 Weighting Commentary The operational use of gear (3B.1) and compliance levels (3B.5) were considered of highest importance. Destructive practises (3B.3) and Operational waste (3B.4) were both considered of minor consequence. 3B.1(MSC Criterion 12) There are management measures that include practices to reduce impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target 25.8 90 species. 3B.1.1 Do management measures, principally through the use of gear and other fishing practices, 100 90 include avoidance of impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target species? These would include by-catch and discard. 60 Measures have been implemented that are intended to reduce the major impacts on non- The use of baited traps is inherently friendly to both target and non-target species. Local target species and inadvertent impacts on target fishers have adapted the pot base to prevent lobster and crab claws and legs from species but their effectiveness is not known. protruding and being damaged during hauling. This practice should be adopted across the 80 Measures have been implemented to reduce the fishery. major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species and there is Discards are returned immediately to the sea with good survivorship expected. some evidence that they are having the desired effect. 100 Measures have been implemented that avoid major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species, and their effectiveness is clearly demonstrated.

3B.2 (MSC Criterion 13) There are management systems in place that encourage fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat. 13.4 3B.2.1 Do fishing operations implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise 100 90 adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas? 60 Fishing operations use measures that should The fishing gear/methods used are inherently environmentally friendly. reduce major impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or Assessment of impacts carried out at Flamborough re cSAC and NESFC commissioned nursery areas. comparison of trawl and no-trawl zones (see Principle 2) 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are effective in avoiding significant adverse effects No critical/spawning areas likely to be affected by this fishery. on the environment, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations implement appropriate methods to avoid significant adverse impacts on all habitats.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 39 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.3 (MSC Criterion 14) The management system incorporates measures that discourage destructive practices. 3.1 100 3B.3.1 Does the fishery employ destructive fishing practices? 100 100 60 The fishery does not allow any destructive fishing No. practices but there is concern that enforcement is inadequate to defer such practices effectively. The EC technical conservation regulation prohibits use of explosives, poisonous or 80 The fishery does not employ any destructive stupefying substances or electric current. This is fully supported at a national and local fishing practices and enforcement is considered level through the promotion of responsible fishing activities. sufficient to prevent their use. 100 The fishery does not employ any destructive fishing practices. There is a code of conduct for responsible fishing that is fully supported by fishers.

3B.4 (MSC Criterion 15) The management system incorporate measures that reduce operational waste. 9 90 3B.4.1 Do measures exist to reduce operational waste? 100 90 60 Measures are in place to reduce major sources of Waste disposal facilities are present in harbours. All vessels are day boats. No complaints R29. Watson and operational waste that may have detrimental re littering had been received. No disposal of waste from primary processing at sea. White, 2004. environmental consequences, but further reductions may be possible. Operational waste arises from damage during handling to legs and claws, mortality due to 80 Measures are in place to reduce most sources of in-appropriate storage prior to landing, and the landing of soft recently moulted lobsters. operational waste that are known to have The issue of limb damage has been addressed through pot design and should be detrimental environmental consequences, and encouraged further (see 3.B.1.1). Seafish (Sea Fish Industry Authority) provide guidance there is evidence they are effective. on lobster storage and handling procedures at sea. 100 Measures are in place to reduce all sources of operational waste that are known to have detrimental environmental consequences, and there is evidence they are effective and these measures are supported by the fishers.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 40 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5 (MSC Criterion 16) Fishing operations are conducted in compliance with the management system and legal and administrative requirements. 27.1 90 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered of equal importance 3B.5.1 Are fishers aware of management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 90 60 Fishers are aware of key management and legal requirements. Fishers are well aware of the lobster regulations – they are few and simple! MFA and 80 Fishers are aware of all key management and NESFC publicize changes in the regulations, which are few and far between. Part-time legal requirements upon them and are kept up to and recreational fishers may be less knowledgeable. date with new developments. 100 All fishers are aware of all management and legal requirements through a clearly documented and communicated mechanism such as a code of conduct.

3B.5.2 Do fishers comply with management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 90 60 Fishers appear generally to comply with The large majority of fishers are fully compliant with the main MLS regulation. To requirements, but there is incomplete information assess the extent of compliance NESFC has statistics showing the number of boardings on the actual extent of compliance. and inspections, the verbal warnings, and the prosecuted offences. Convictions for lobster 80 Fishers are fully compliant with relevant offences were less than 1% of the boardings and inspections undertaken. management requirements. 100 Fishers are fully compliant with, and fully MFA tend to concentrate on fisheries offences relating to fin-fisheries, mesh sizes and supportive of, a code of conduct that incorporates TAC and quota management, and encourage NESFC to cover inshore shellfish offences. legal and administrative requirements.

3B.5.3 What is the record of enforcement of regulations in the fishery: e.g. quota controls, by- 33.3 90 catch limits, MLS, mesh regulations and closed areas? 60 There is some information on breaches of regulations and on corrective action to prevent or See 3B.5.2 above. curtail such breaches. Enforcement by NESFC is through inspections at sea and i of landings. 80 Evidence of rigorous monitoring of all the enforcement measures and evidence of actions The NESFC are the main enforcement agency in relation to this fishery and are cross taken in the event of breaches is available. warranted with the MFA to enforce certain national legislation, as well as their own 100 Documented evidence of rigorous monitoring and byelaws. control of the enforcement measures. There is The NESFC, EA and DEFRA (MFA) keep up to date records of all cautions and documented evidence of firm action having been enforcement actions in relation to this fishery and they are published and in the public taken in the event of breaches having occurred. domain.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 41 of 42 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.6 (MSC Criterion 17) The management system involves fishers in data collection. 21.5 90 3B.6.1 Do fishery operatives assist in the collection of catch, discard and other relevant data? 100 90 60 Fishery operatives are occasionally involved in Fishers provide fishery data as a requirement of the NESFC permit scheme. Some fishers the collection of catch, discard and other provide additional data on a voluntary basis. CEFAS has had a voluntary logbook scheme information. operating in the area for over 30 years. Fishers are willing to participate in monitoring 80 Fishery operatives are regularly involved in the and research projects by taking CEFAS and NESFC staff to sea. collection and recording of catch, discard and other information. 100 Fishery operatives assist significantly in the collection and recording of catch, discard and other information.

NESFC Lobster Fishery FN 082020 v3 26/06/2007, 9:38 AM Scoring Comments Page 42 of 42

Appendix B: Peer Review Reports Peer Review A This peer review has been carried out on behalf of Moody Marine Ltd with an allocation of one professional day. The volume of information cited is extensive as is the level of detail provided in the body of the report and assessment scoring tables. This review is thus necessarily brief and is not able to consider the information cited and its application to the assessment in any depth. Comments are thus somewhat generalised. General Comments on the Report The report is clearly put together and informative. There clearly has been a thorough approach to searching out information relevant to the assessment. The report appears to have identified a significant volume of relevant literature, though I am not in a position to comment on whether there are particular omissions. There is considerable overlap between MAFF/CEFAS generic research effort on lobsters in the UK and the assessment area. Probably no other part of the UK coast has had its lobster fisheries studied to the same extent. The background to the target species (section 2.1) is well presented and comprehensive. There is a minor error relating to the relationship with size and fecundity. The text suggests a linear relationship with carapace length, while my own observations and common sense suggest that it is related to weight not length: indeed the numbers given as an example suggest the relationship is not linear with CL. MML comment: the relationship between size (weight) and fecundity has been clarified. The description of the fishery (section 2.3) is adequate, though the reference to the permit scheme crops up without any prior discussion as to what it is. The estimate of 75% of catch within SFC limits could be high and should perhaps have been questioned. Comparing tables 2 and 3, the three main ports contain the bulk of the number of pots (about 50,000 out of 64,000) and at those ports the majority of the vessels in the permit scheme are >10m and so have the range to fish beyond 6 miles. There also seems to be a major and unexplained difference in the number of pots worked, given as around 60-70,000 (bottom of page 6, table 3 and section 2.3.1) while narrative on page 7 and all the LPUE analysis seems to assume around 500,000. This seems an impossibly high number for the number of vessels. There is some uncertainty expressed later (section 5.1) about the data provided by the permit scheme and perhaps this discrepancy is somehow linked to that. In any event I think more clarification is required as to what fishing area is encompassed in the data recording and analysis and if, as I suspect, anywhere up to half of it applies to activity outside six miles, then this needs more clearly flagging up. This may have significant implications for the unit of certification which need airing in the report. MML comment: a reference to the section (3.1.1) describing the permit scheme has been added in Section 2.3. The proportions (75% and 25%) of lobster landings within and without the NESFC District (6 miles) are estimates provided by the SFC staff, based on their permit scheme returns and local knowledge. There was (there is now) no obligation for fishers to provide lobster landings data from outside the District. The text has been modified to identify the source of the estimates. The issue of ‘pots worked’ has also been clarified. The figures have been expressed as monthly means to equate with the values at bottom of page 6, in Table 3, and Section 2.3.1. The data analysis is done on an annual basis. The reporting of voluntary declarations of by-catch of lobster by trawlers could have been treated with more scepticism. By-catch is of lobster is often regarded as “pocket money” within those parts of the industry that do not target it, sold for cash, and there will be a natural inclination to significantly under-declare. The current row with itinerant French trawlers in the 6-12 mile band off this part of the coast over gear conflict suggests both that that lobster by- catches are much higher than stated and that there is a significant targeted fishery outside 6 miles. MML comment: the analysis uses data from the permit scheme, excluding any landings

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 38

and effort from outside the 6-mile limit. The issue of landings outside the unit of certification has been highlighted, particularly in Section 4.1 Management Unit, and in Pre-Conditions 1 and 6. Best use was made of the available data on by-catches of lobsters by trawlers. It is possible that the voluntary returns are under-estimates. In comparison with the landings from the pot fishery, trawler caught lobsters are likely to be a relatively small proportion of the total. As trawling is mainly outside the SFC District the impact on the unit of certification is likely to be small, unless there are strong biological links between the inshore and offshore lobsters. Section 2.5 regarding the geological aspects of the ecosystem, Flamborough Head etc appear to be detailed but generally superfluous to the certification process The discussion of edible and velvet crabs as “by-catch” (section 2.7.3) is a bit misleading as they form part of the commercial catch of this mixed fishery. Potters change location with season to target one or the other predominantly, but they can not be considered a by-catch in the way for example star-fish could be. MML comment: the assessment segregates retained ‘incidental’ catch and discarded catch. The discussion of trawl-free zones (section 2.8) could have benefited from a map or some quantification in terms of their size relative to the NESFC area. MML comment: a reference and link to the specific bylaw inserted. Section 5 on management is perhaps a bit thin. Objectives are well discussed but there could perhaps be some discussion of management in practice. There could be more description of what NESFC do on land and at sea and they will no doubt have records such as number of boardings, number of warnings, successful convictions, nature of offences etc etc. The assessment process is after all primarily concerned with the management of the fishery. MML comment: text taken from the Scoring Comment table has been added to Section 5.1 to draw attention to the enforcement activity. Section 3.1.3 lists the local SFC Byelaws. Section 8 on stakeholder consultation is a bit vague. The certification process is theoretically to the benefit of stakeholders and some more detailed feedback on their view of the sustainability of the fishery could have been interesting, not least from the industry itself. MML comment: actual feedback from stakeholders is contained in the main body of the text. The text has been clarified to reflect this. Comments on Scoring 1.1.1.2 Life history and Spawning and nursery areas. I agree with the life history but the hazy knowledge of spawning and nursery grounds in this area I feel warrants a much lower score. MML comment: the implications are addressed by the failing score of 75 in 1.1.1.3. 1.1.1.3 Geographical range of the stock. This appears to be one of the key points of the assessment. Given its importance I would have added more weighting to this point. The text appears doubtful. Given large uncertainties about larval drift and sources of recruitment it is very likely that the stock in NESFC area within 6 miles is not discrete. I do not feel Spurn Point is necessarily a break-point in sub-populations. There is no hard ground in the Humber so no lobsters, but lobsters are found again not far to the south, off Lincolnshire. According to the MSC’s guidelines for fisheries exploiting only part of a stock, the rest of the assessment of Principle 1 should concern the whole stock. I suggest that comments here make that clear and that all further consideration is given to the situation regarding the wider stock. In the case of lobsters, this is probably necessary at the North Sea level, if not the national picture on stock condition and management. Scoring here is difficult. Given this is part of level 1.1.1 which says there should be sufficient information to measure the effect of the fishery (i.e. NESFC area ) on the target stock (i.e. the North Sea or national stocks?) all we can really say is that the fishery is a sub-set of the national effort. National effort is not well recorded in terms of pot numbers, pot hauls or similar units of effort, so it is difficult to compare what is occurring

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 39

in NESFC area (or adjacent waters) and the rest. MML comment: we agree with this as we do not have sufficient knowledge to make a confident assessment of unit stock which is the main reason for the failure to reach a score to allow certification. This issue is addressed in the pre- conditions. Incidentally the heading in the table for 1.1.2 has almost identical wording. Is this intentional? MML comment: Yes 1.1.2.1. Mortality. Disagree re low natural mortality of hatchery reared. Survival to the point of appearing in the commercial catch is 10% or so in the best hot-spots, lower elsewhere. Having said that, “quite low” mortality is a relative statement. Perhaps 90% natural mortality is low compared to other species, but unless a comparison is made then suggest omit the comment. MML comment: we have substituted “relatively” for “quite” low natural mortality rates. 1.1.2.5 Other fisheries: Perhaps should make minor mention of the trawler by-catch. MML comment: this is covered elsewhere in the report. 1.1.3 Reference points. Note this question refers to the stock while some of the comments provided refer to the fishery. This answer thus requires appropriate qualification. MML comment: suitable text added. 1.1.4.1 Containment of effort. Do not understand the reference to lower MLS in the last sentence. MML comment: suitable text added. 1.1.5 Robust assessment of stocks. Note the weighting score commentary here refers to harvest strategies. Has there been some copying error in the tables? MML comment: weighting comment about harvest strategies has been deleted. 1.1.6 Reference levels: The answer here and the cross over with Criterion 2 on the next page is confusing. The instructions dictate that if the answer regarding reference levels is “no”, which in effect it is, then Criteria 2 should be addressed next. The answer at criteria 2 refers back to this one. MML comment: added explanation included in the table. 1.2.1. Depleted stocks. No score is given. Presume should be 60. As a generality I think more guidance is needed from MSC as to what depleted means. All commercial stocks are depleted from their virgin level. There is a desire to see stocks return to, or above a reference level whereby the stock “produce long term potential yields”….what does this mean and at what level between depleted and virgin status can this point be said to be reached? Lobster stocks are unlikely to be rebuilding. LPUE suggests stability but always with risk of over-fishing. Unless effort is meaningfully capped, lobsters are likely to fail MSC assessment on this point. MML comment: no score was given, as the question was not relevant. The comment about needing to have fishing effort capped to allow a lobster fishery to pass an MSC assessment is a fair one. UK shellfish management is slowing moving in that direction, but is not currently achieved. 2.1.1.2 Non-target. See earlier comments on interpretation of “by-catch” in this fishery. MML comment: see above. 2.1.2.1 By catch. This seems to repeat question 2.1.1.2. MML comment: 2.1.1.2 is the identification of non-target species whilst 2.1.2.1 quantifies the non-target catch. 2.1.2.3 Unobserved fishing mort. Could have mentioned trawl and hobby fishing. MML comment: is mentioned elsewhere in the text. 2.1.2.4 Bait. There must be some mistake here – use of 5 mackerel (~ 1kg) can not possibly be economic. Meant to be 0.5?? MML comment: is based on industry sources. 2.1.4.1 Acceptable impact. This question is largely irrelevant as the impacts are so low. Could have scored higher? Note last sentence should be “…….considered insignificant” MML comment: text changed.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 40

2.1.5.1 Ecosystem. This question is repetitive. However suggest the reference to Flamborough is qualified as it is such a small area compared to the rest. MML comment: text changed to reflect the relative significance of Flamborough Head area. 2.1.5.2 Removal and ecosystem. I think it should be acknowledged that removal of nearly all the stock over MLS has the potential to have some effect on prey populations, so putting something of a distorting influence on the benthic communities in lobster habitat, compared to the virgin situation. However this would be difficult to quantify and assess for significance. MML comment: a small caveat has been inserted to reflect the uncertainty. 3.A.1 Management system. Again suggest this section should make some distinction between the stock and the fishery in the answers. MML comment: covered elsewhere in the text. 3.A.2.3 Legal/customary rights. This answer is a bit unclear. Who are the public? Does this include commercial fishermen? Anybody “dependent” on fishing in UK has to have a licence and this is used partly to protect them from an open access (unlicensed) situation. Also of relevance here is the inclusion of fishermen in the Sea Fisheries Committee? Score seems low. MML comment: the scoring comment has been edited to take account of the reviewer’s remarks. Bearing in mind the lack of representation for recreational fishers, the score of 85 seems appropriate. 3.A.5.1: Research areas. The answer talks about research bodies and functions rather than topics. Perhaps the answer here should just be “yes” and then cite the research that could be undertaken. MML comment: A paragraph has been added listing the main areas of research. 3.A.6.1 Management applicable to stock: Again need to be clear we are talking about the wider picture here. There are no clear objectives for the stock which should again be flagged here. The second para is at odds with other comments I recall in the earlier tables saying the stock is well sampled. MML comment: Text in scoring comment modified. 3.A.6.3 Procedures for reducing harvest. I feel this should have been a clearer “no”. If the stock was clearly getting into trouble then DEFRA could probably close fisheries in time or space, as could NESFC locally, though this would be cumbersome and take time at the national (stock) level. As with white fish there is a tendency to let stock reductions become serious before there is the collective will for corrective actions. There are no procedures for partial reductions. Suggest lower score. MML comment: while agreeing with the reviewer’s comments, there is in fact little scope within current shellfish legislation to allow for direct reductions in harvest, e.g. effort control or quota management. Summary I am in overall agreement that the information gathered has generally been correctly applied and that this fishery should fail on Principle 1 and pass on Principles 2 and 3. Given the uncertainty over the unit of stock, and current MSC guidance on partial fishing of wider stocks, I feel it is not appropriate for NESFC or any other SFC to apply for certification of their lobster fishery in isolation. That is not to say that the MSC principles and criteria should be abandoned at a local level. The P’s & C’s are simply best practice in fishery management and meeting them should be the aspiration at the national level. In practical terms, major hurdles to achieving these appear to be a better understanding of all factors affecting recruitment as well as comprehensive measurement of effort and mechanisms to control it.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 41

Peer Review B The following commentary begins with an overview of the assessment report and it’s findings, and continues by section, save for Conditions and Recommendations, that have been left until the end. Comments against individual criteria in the Appendix table are only made where this reviewer disagrees with the interpretation/scoring, or has something to add. No comment implies agreement. 1. General comments The Certification Report offers an excellent description and critique of the NESFC lobster fishery and it’s management with a rigorous evaluation of suitability for certification following the MSC Principles and Criteria. Although this reviewer is not a crustacean expert, it appears that representative stakeholder groups and experts have been consulted, and appropriate literature cited. It is disappointing that little seems to have been published concerning lobster stock assessment since 1998. MML comment: the assessment authors were not aware of any recent published assessments of NE coast lobsters in terms of stock status and levels of fishing mortality (F). It would help if clarification were given on what assessments on lobster stocks had been carried out, and with what outcome in terms of stock status and levels of F. It would also be helpful to link this with changes in legislation, e.g. MLS increases/licensing. The geographical/ecosystem context of the local fishery is well documented and all relevant environmental concerns appear to have been addressed, although there appear to have been very few studies on the impact of the gear on the ecosystem. MML comment: the lack of studies on the possible impact of gear on the ecosystem is a reflection of the perceived likelihood of a low impact and the setting of research priorities. The scoring indicators seem to have been appropriately weighted, although, I have raised a few queries on comments against weighting commentaries and scores under Principle 1. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, the technical information has been appropriately applied to the scoring indicators. In a few places it is not clear under Principles 1 and 3 sub-criteria, whether comments should apply to the local fishery, the regional (North Sea?) stock, or the UK stock. This may have implications for weighting of some indicators that this reviewer was not able to interpret. Overall, the application and interpretation of the information and science according to the MSC Principles and Criteria appear to be correct and justify the decision regarding certification of this fishery. The Certification Report correctly identifies weaknesses in fisheries data processing and working up for assessments and the need for a management plan and harvest strategy. The pre-conditions specified in the Certification Recommendations seem appropriate for addressing these shortcomings. I have raised a point concerning achievability in section 7. 2. Background to the fishery. 2.3 Description of the current fishery: the NESFC permit scheme has produced some very useful statistics for monitoring trends in landings and LPUE, which, as the authors comment, indicates a fairly stable local fishery and stock. 2.7 Habitat and Ecosystem Impacts: the review appears comprehensive, although conclusive studies on ghost fishing and ecosystem impacts are few and further research may be merited. MML comment: see above.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 42

4. Stock Assessment: 4.3 Modelling: The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states : ‘ It seems fairly clear from the size composition data collected by both NESFC and CEFAS that there is a high exploitation rate on the inshore grounds off the NE coast…’. It would have been informative to present these data (from R 25?), as the authors suggest that landings and effort information collected under the NESFC permit scheme indicates a stable fishery. This appears to indicate steady recruitment, but a ‘recruit fishery’. MML comment: a sentence has been added to draw attention to the ‘recruit fishery’. 4.4 Management advice. The last sentence in the second paragraph suggests that gains in yield-per-recruit, resulting from a MLS increase, are likely to have been negated by increases in fishing effort – but possibly not if the lobster stock has increased? (Comment applies also at 1.1.6.1). MML comment: while gains in yield-per-recruit arising from the additional growth a lobsters from the old to a new increased MLS may be negated by fishing effort increases, the reviewer is correct to say that if fecundity-per-recruit has increased this could lead to an increase in recruitment that would balance out the effort increases. However, we are not in a position to evaluate such possible benefits/losses. 5 Fishery Management 5.1 Management objectives. The fourth paragraph says that one of the aims of the ‘V’ notching scheme was to increase recruitment to the fishable stock, but I have not seen any evidence presented that the lack of recruitment is a problem in this fishery. In the next paragraph, mention is made of the high catch rates of undersize lobsters – surely indicating good recruitment? A reliable system for local recruit monitoring is needed. MML comment: fair comment - there is a need for a ‘recruit index’ and a cost-benefit analysis of the v-notching scheme. 6 Appendices – Scoring Table Principle 1 1.1.1.2 Second para says that there is a gap in knowledge from settlement until juveniles recruit to the fishery – but at 1.1.5.4 it is stated that a pre-recruit index has been developed. MML comment: we have added at 1.1.5.4 a comment about low sampling levels for the recruit index. 1.1.2.5 All the Scoring Indicators mention inclusion of additional mortalities in stock assessments, but given that there are no assessments – at least in the fishery under review – is a score of 90 supportable? MML comment: This section is assessing the availability of information on other fisheries exploiting lobsters, and does not make reference to assessments. On that basis the score of 90 is justified. 1.1.3.1 – 1.1.6.1. I am in broad agreement with most scoring indicator criteria and comments under Principle 1, although I would question the need (in this type of fishery) for precautionary points as defined by ICES for internationally assessed finfish stocks at 1.1.3.1, other than F. Also, it is not altogether clear how much weighting is given to management and assessment at each level – local, regional, national and international. A major bar for certification appears to be the lack of effort control at local level, although attempts have been made to cap effort via the national licensing scheme. There are clearly problems in satisfying the sub-criteria in this area, but the MLS is a strong management tool (above size of first maturity and well enforced), catches are stable and well monitored and recruitment appears to be strong. Also, the comments, as this reviewer read them against the scoring indicators, suggested a shade higher scoring might have resulted in a few places, although he lacks the expert knowledge of the fishery and the issues at stake. MML comment: It is agreed that there is a need for a more rigorous approach to setting reference levels, even at the Precautionary level. While the current

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 43

fisheries data suggest a relatively stable fishery, though the assessment authors had some reservations about the permit scheme data and analysis, and the MLS is an effective technical measure, there is concern about the possibility of further increases in fishing effort. The lack of effective effort control is an impediment to certification. This point has been addressed in the report and scoring table. Principle 2 My only comments under this principle are that the studies on which the comments on effects of gear use and ecosystem impacts are rather sparse and that it appears that much more needs to be done on non-target species such as velvet crab. MML comment: see comments above about research priorities and ecosystem impacts. Principle 3 The only comment – more of a question - relates to research planned to meet requirements of fishery management (3.A.5.2 - see also pre-conditions). In the first para mention is made to the client’s lack of scientific resources and that they look to Cefas to carry out major research – have Cefas and Defra committed the necessary resources? MML comment: The authors’ task was to identify the research needs. It is up to the client and other stakeholders to consider what contribution they are prepared to make. 6 Certification Recommendation Although this reviewer might have scored slightly higher on the information given under Principle 1, the case against certification at this stage is convincing, and it is unlikely that a pass score would have been attained. 7 Pre Conditions and Conditions All the pre-conditions and conditions are supported, although achievability, particularly of 1 and 2, will depend on the co-operation and resources of other organisations over which the Client has no control.

Ref: 802020 v5 Final Report Page 44